Results 1 to 49 of 49
  1. #1

  2. #2
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,107
    Well lets just wait until that article gets published. There's always room for interpretation on any scientific study, especially when we're talking about epidemiology. One thing that quickly came to mind is the I-131 levels for Salt Lake, Boise, etc. Although high, what were they before Fukushima? Maybe those locations always had high, endogenous levels of the isotope. And what is the basis to correlate infant mortality in the U.S. with the radiation cloud from Fukushima? Epidemiology and cause and effect is a tricky mine field. I'm sure the article addresses these issues, I'm curious to see the raw data and the methodology before reaching any conclusions. 14,000 deaths in 14 months sounds like a large number to me so the red flags on this are going up in my mind.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Supermoto Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    51
    Wait a second. Aren't you the same guy who posted that we had all better watch out how we use Neti Pots because we could die from a brain-eating amoeba?

    I'm thinking you should step away from the computer and go out for a ride. Maybe I should too.

    Life is too short to worry about some stuff (but not Neti Pots- or Fukushima-short).

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Danke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    538
    Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network
    As long as the netti pot (chuckle) amoebas aren't exposed to radiation we should all be fine.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermoto Fan View Post
    Wait a second. Aren't you the same guy who posted that we had all better watch out how we use Neti Pots because we could die from a brain-eating amoeba?

    I'm thinking you should step away from the computer and go out for a ride. Maybe I should too.

    Life is too short to worry about some stuff (but not Neti Pots- or Fukushima-short).
    sigh, yes I mean god forbid people make informed decisions about their own lives. But at no place did I say we could all die, I merely stated it is a good Idea to boil your water. thank you for trying to make that thread into something that it was not.
    Why would you possibly want to be aware of something negative? Obviously a all the radiation being pumped (still) into the Atmosphere and into the water is good for you isnt it? Maybe if you *******s quit being dickbags and we all got together we could put our energy forward and push our useless politicians to actually do something positive. or you can try to stomp your feet, close your eyes, and hope it all goes away.

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation: Spinning Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,435
    I once stepped in dog poo, will I be OK?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network
    As long as the netti pot (chuckle) amoebas aren't exposed to radiation we should all be fine.
    And thus is the problem, on one side you have people trying to inform others, on the other you have people arguing over any minor thing they possibly can. But hey, maybe you and Ann coulter could go help the clean up in Japan, I mean you are a hero and all right ?
    My brother in Law died from throat cancer from working on the beloved Nevada Test site, but hey, the government told him it was safe too. Believe what you choose, but do not mock those of us who seek to be informed and to try to make the planet a better place.

  8. #8
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network
    As long as the netti pot (chuckle) amoebas aren't exposed to radiation we should all be fine.
    Thanks for that article, which conveniently links to the original study.

    http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

    Reading through it, how in the hell did that **** get published? That journal is CLEARLY not peer-reviewed. I found this lovely tidbit in there:

    Statistical significance between the 2010 and 2011 death trends was calculated
    by using the difference between two means.
    Really? I want to know how that is a test for statistical significance!

    Oddly enough, they put their actual statistical test in the appendix. WTF is that doing in the appendix and not in the body? Why is the z-score not included in the results?

    Appendix Table 4
    Calculation of significance of differences in 2010 and 2011 deaths
    For example, in Table 2, the number of deaths rose 4.46%, from 148,395 to 155,015,
    from weeks 12–25 in 2010 versus 2011. This compared with a 2.34% increase from the
    prior 14-week periods. The significance of difference between the two means (+2.34%
    vs. +4.46%) was calculated using a t-test.
    The formula (O – E)/SQRT (mean12 + mean22) was used, assuming
    O = observed increase (1.0446)
    E = expected increase (1.0234)
    N1 = number of deaths for weeks 12–25, 2011
    N2 = number of deaths for weeks 50–11, 2011
    Mean1 = 1/(SQRT N1) × O = 1/(SQRT 155,015) × 1.0446 = 0.002653
    Mean2 = 1/(SQRT N2) × E = 1/(SQRT 148,395) × 1.0234 = 0.002657
    The computations yield 0.0212/0.0037148, or a z-score of 5.71, which converts to a
    p value of < 0.000001 in any basic statistics table, meaning there is less than a 1 in
    1,000,000 chance that the difference occurred due to random chance.
    And seeing what they did there, still doesn't make sense. They looked at NUMBERS of deaths. Did they care to standardize those numbers somehow? The total numbers of deaths could simply have increased due to a change in the total population, which they aren't taking into account.

    My favorite, however, comes from their references list.

    Fong, P. Sudden infant deaths on rise in B.C. Toronto Star, July 6, 2011. www.the
    star.com/news/canada/article/1020924-sudden-infant-deaths-on-rise-in-b-c (accessed
    August 4, 2011).
    A newspaper article? Really? Cited in a "scholarly" journal article?

    The Scientific American article pointed out that the author of the paper is an anti-nuclear energy activist so I sought to dig up some details on the guy. I went to the homepage of the "journal" that published his paper, and went to the journal page.

    Nuclink: Journal of Current Radiation and Public Health Issues

    So the PI is the editor, eh? No wonder that **** got published. I see his professional certifications include a master's of public health and a master's of business administration. No wonder his paper is sketchy with regards to rigorous statistical analysis. He probably lacks training in that area.

    An interesting bit of bio info on the guy:

    Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA - Alternative Energy - ProCon.org

    I turned up this really nice critique of the paper, too. It shows some REAL statistics and links to other critiques of the paper, too.

    Shame on you, Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano! « Nuclear Power? Yes Please

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Scott O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinning Lizard View Post
    I once stepped in dog poo, will I be OK?
    As long as you didn't snort it through your neti pot, you should be ok. You didn't do that, did you!?!?!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Danke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    And thus is the problem, on one side you have people trying to inform others, on the other you have people arguing over any minor thing they possibly can. But hey, maybe you and Ann coulter could go help the clean up in Japan, I mean you are a hero and all right ?
    My brother in Law died from throat cancer from working on the beloved Nevada Test site, but hey, the government told him it was safe too. Believe what you choose, but do not mock those of us who seek to be informed and to try to make the planet a better place.
    I don't think I'd get along with Ann etc. I base my life on reality.

  11. #11
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinning Lizard View Post
    I once stepped in dog poo, will I be OK?
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott O View Post
    As long as you didn't snort it through your neti pot, you should be ok. You didn't do that, did you!?!?!




    Yeah, you got to snort that sh it off the bottom of your shoe.

  12. #12
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,008
    100% complete and total pseudo-science, at best. I am a published author and reviewer for several peer-reviewed publications and I assure you, that did not go through the traditional scientific process.

    What's worse is that the WSJ is doing their part to contribute to the internet fearmongering.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    Thanks for that article, which conveniently links to the original study.

    http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

    Reading through it, how in the hell did that **** get published? That journal is CLEARLY not peer-reviewed. I found this lovely tidbit in there:



    Really? I want to know how that is a test for statistical significance!

    Oddly enough, they put their actual statistical test in the appendix. WTF is that doing in the appendix and not in the body? Why is the z-score not included in the results?



    And seeing what they did there, still doesn't make sense. They looked at NUMBERS of deaths. Did they care to standardize those numbers somehow? The total numbers of deaths could simply have increased due to a change in the total population, which they aren't taking into account.

    My favorite, however, comes from their references list.



    A newspaper article? Really? Cited in a "scholarly" journal article?

    The Scientific American article pointed out that the author of the paper is an anti-nuclear energy activist so I sought to dig up some details on the guy. I went to the homepage of the "journal" that published his paper, and went to the journal page.

    Nuclink: Journal of Current Radiation and Public Health Issues

    So the PI is the editor, eh? No wonder that **** got published. I see his professional certifications include a master's of public health and a master's of business administration. No wonder his paper is sketchy with regards to rigorous statistical analysis. He probably lacks training in that area.

    An interesting bit of bio info on the guy:

    Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA - Alternative Energy - ProCon.org

    I turned up this really nice critique of the paper, too. It shows some REAL statistics and links to other critiques of the paper, too.

    Shame on you, Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano! « Nuclear Power? Yes Please
    Good thing you dont do as much riding as you should





    Good post though.

  14. #14
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Good thing you dont do as much riding as you should





    Good post though.
    sitting on my ass in my office doing my own data analysis. the only riding I'm doing lately is commuting. haven't been on the mtb in at least a month.

  15. #15
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    ...My brother in Law died from throat cancer from working on the beloved Nevada Test site....
    Oral sex with a partner who has genital warts?

    Oral Sex May Cause More Throat Cancer Than Smoking in Men, Researchers Say- Bloomberg

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by pursuiter View Post
    Why do you have this problem?


    PM sent, feel free to take me up on it if you are in my area, I doubt you have any balls however.

  17. #17
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post

    Good post though.
    It was a great post. And no offense, but the article it references is complete and utter sh*t.

    Not everyone has the background to discern what is scientific research and what is crappy meta-analysis, which sucks because big media will publish anything sensational. TL1 also does a good job of posting one-sided crap that serves his personal beliefs without actually analyzing the studies.

    Great job, NateHawk. And thanks Blurr for calling stuff out like this, it's always good to have people paying attention out there .

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CarolinaLL6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    PM sent, feel free to take me up on it if you are in my area, I doubt you have any balls however.
    You got trolled then you PM him that?

  19. #19
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    In the bin, why am I so surprised?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Reality bothers most people, Chernobyl was contained in ten days months later fuku still is not, but hey we do pretty good treating leukemia now days so what the hell. Back to discussing if we have to many gadgets and other important stuff.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by CarolinaLL6 View Post
    You got trolled then you PM him that?
    Watching someone die from cancer is pretty horrible and there is quit a bit of emotion on my end over this, so yea I got trolled but then again honor is more than just a word to me.

  22. #22
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Reality bothers most people, Chernobyl was contained in ten days months later fuku still is not, but hey we do pretty good treating leukemia now days so what the hell. Back to discussing if we have to many gadgets and other important stuff.


    I was not taking shots at you, just a bit of commentary on the trajectory of the thread. I largely agree with with your basic premise, but arguing it is not going to convert anyone. I live among many "down winders" I am very familiar with effects of nuclear testing and the human toll it produced. Keep on keepin on. Merry Christmas to all.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    I know az you seem like a solid guy, I admit I laughed at down winders, have a good Christmas as well.

  24. #24
    "2 Wycked"
    Reputation: crazy03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott O View Post
    As long as you didn't snort it through your neti pot, you should be ok. You didn't do that, did you!?!?!
    First you need to boil the sh*t and then you can sniff it through your neti pot.

  25. #25
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Reality bothers most people, Chernobyl was contained in ten days months later fuku still is not, but hey we do pretty good treating leukemia now days so what the hell. Back to discussing if we have to many gadgets and other important stuff.
    I can provide a little bit of insight about leukemia treatments

  26. #26
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by OO7 View Post
    100% complete and total pseudo-science, at best.
    It is not pseudo-science. It is not science at all. Complete and unadulterated pile of ьullshit.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Really so you think that there are no results from all that radiation?

    Let us recap Top Scientists "If its not contained Immediatly it will be a complete disaster for us all"


    Months later "oh nothing to worry about, nothing to see here, someone is full of ****, its ok"

  28. #28
    Nickel Havr
    Reputation: Eckstream1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,177
    Quote Originally Posted by siyecao99 View Post
    Beats By Dr Dre Studio Spiderman With White Diamond High Definition On Ear Attracts People Deeply..... Blah Blah Blah
    Really dude?

    This thread is about a horrible tragedy and you spam it!
    You truly have no soul!

    Quote Originally Posted by William Blake
    Great things are done when men and mountains meet. This is not done by jostling in the street .

  29. #29
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Really so you think that there are no results from all that radiation?
    Yes, there are no results from "all that radiation" anywhere away from the immidiate vicinity of the plant. And even for workers on the plant there will be no detectable long term health effects, unless they completely violated some basic safety procedures.

    Do you have any idea how much natural radioactivity is everywhere around you and inside of you?

    And yes, I do know what I am talking about, and you do not.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Yes, there are no results from "all that radiation" anywhere away from the immidiate vicinity of the plant. And even for workers on the plant there will be no detectable long term health effects, unless they completely violated some basic safety procedures.

    Do you have any idea how much natural radioactivity is everywhere around you and inside of you?

    And yes, I do know what I am talking about, and you do not.
    Read ann Coulters book Evidently


    And yes, I know exactly what IM talking about, no you do not seem to grasp what is actually going on *golf clap* for at least visiting the thread.


    All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer. - NIRS
    There are several natural things in nature that once we manage to mess with and condense creates long term Health effects, of course people like you point and say "oh its in nature" yet ignore the obvious long term effects on people and you will in fact try to argue and blame it on other things but in reality your Village is Looking for you hint, hint.

  31. #31
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Read ann Coulters book Evidently
    No, got a Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    And yes, I know exactly what IM talking about.
    No, you do not. You have absolutely no idea what levels and kinds of exposure we are talking about and what are the actual consequences.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    No, got a Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford.
    Doesnt everyone on the Internet, coincidentally My Sister has her Masters from Stanford and actually worked on nuclear plants as is one of her closest friends not to mention the stacks of Boiler makers, iron workers, ect that I know who also worked on said plants, I am going to go ahead and assume you are not a nuclear physicist though are you?

    No, you do not. You have absolutely no idea what levels and kinds of exposure we are talking about and what are the actual consequences.
    Scroll up my family already went thru it, would you like to donate to our organization?

    Feel Free to contact all those families effected and tell them how ok It all was will ya? The puny settlements do not bring back those you watched die horribly.

    Leukemia & Cancer Benefits


    Cancer in People Exposed to Nuclear Weapons Testing

    There is little doubt that high-dose radiation exposure can cause cancer. This has become clear from studies of groups such as the survivors of the atomic blasts in Japan, where the risks of certain cancers such as leukemias and thyroid cancers were higher than normal. Some issues, however, are not as clear, such as the amount of exposure required, and the types of cancer that radiation can cause.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    From Science Daily
    Chernobyl Disaster Caused Cancer Cases In Sweden

    ScienceDaily (Nov. 21, 2004) — A statistically determined correlation between radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident and an increase in the number of cases of cancer in the exposed areas in Sweden is reported in a study by scientists at Linköping University, Örebro University, and the County Council of Västernorrland County.


    Increased Risk Of Thyroid Diseases Linked To Exposure At Chernobyl, Study Shows


    ScienceDaily (Feb. 19, 2008) — Persons exposed to radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident as children and adolescents have an increased risk of follicular adenoma or benign tumor of the thyroid gland, according to researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Results of the study further suggest that age at exposure, history of thyroid diseases, and location of residence do not modify its risk. This is the first epidemiologic study of the association between radiation exposure from radioactive iodine fallout from the Chernobyl accident and subsequent risk of follicular adenoma in those exposed at 18 years old or younger.

  34. #34
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    From Science Daily
    Chernobyl Disaster Caused Cancer Cases In Sweden

    ScienceDaily (Nov. 21, 2004) — A statistically determined correlation between radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident and an increase in the number of cases of cancer in the exposed areas in Sweden is reported in a study by scientists at Linköping University, Örebro University, and the County Council of Västernorrland County.


    Increased Risk Of Thyroid Diseases Linked To Exposure At Chernobyl, Study Shows


    ScienceDaily (Feb. 19, 2008) — Persons exposed to radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident as children and adolescents have an increased risk of follicular adenoma or benign tumor of the thyroid gland, according to researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Results of the study further suggest that age at exposure, history of thyroid diseases, and location of residence do not modify its risk. This is the first epidemiologic study of the association between radiation exposure from radioactive iodine fallout from the Chernobyl accident and subsequent risk of follicular adenoma in those exposed at 18 years old or younger.
    You don't really understand statistics or scientific research, do you?

  35. #35
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    No, got a Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford.



    No, you do not. You have absolutely no idea what levels and kinds of exposure we are talking about and what are the actual consequences.
    Don't feed this troll - he is not worthy of engaging
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  36. #36
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    I am going to go ahead and assume you are not a nuclear physicist though are you?
    Actually, I am. I did not go for an academic career, but I do have publications to my name in "Physics of Atomic Nuclei" and "Nuclear Instruments and Methods". But other guys are right, why feed the troll. Unsibsribing and let this thread fall off... I just have a strong allergy to bullcrap and felt compelled to respond. My bad.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Actually, I am. I did not go for an academic career, but I do have publications to my name in "Physics of Atomic Nuclei" and "Nuclear Instruments and Methods". But other guys are right, why feed the troll. Unsibsribing and let this thread fall off... I just have a strong allergy to bullcrap and felt compelled to respond. My bad.
    LOL sure you are Would you like to jump in the rocket I built?

    Yea why would you want to talk about something serious? I mean god forbid.

    I do love people like you however, your type denies everything, then afterwards just shrugs your shoulders as long as you are not personally effected.

    Yea IM a troll I guess that is what happens when you address actual issues and go against the sheeple, go bleat in the field with the rest of the morons.


    You don't really understand statistics or scientific research, do you?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Actually, I am. I did not go for an academic career, but I do have publications to my name in "Physics of Atomic Nuclei" and "Nuclear Instruments and Methods". But other guys are right, why feed the troll. Unsibsribing and let this thread fall off... I just have a strong allergy to bullcrap and felt compelled to respond. My bad.
    LOL sure you are Would you like to jump in the rocket I built?

    Yea why would you want to talk about something serious? I mean god forbid.

    I do love people like you however, your type denies everything, then afterwards just shrugs your shoulders as long as you are not personally effected.

    Yea IM a troll I guess that is what happens when you address actual issues and go against the sheeple, course that was coming from Highdel, when has he had a serious post about anything? I mean all he does is follow the forum around and point out grammar lol, but hey, pay attention to him while people die.


    You don't really understand statistics or scientific research, do you?

  39. #39
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    LOL sure you are Would you like to jump in the rocket I built?
    Would you come here and publicly apologize if I send you a link? Or you are not a man enough? I prefer not to use my real name in an easily searchable public forum, populated by more then a few asshats, but with a little bit of google fu you could look me up.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Would you come here and publicly apologize if I send you a link? Or you are not a man enough? I prefer not to use my real name in an easily searchable public forum, populated by more then a few asshats, but with a little bit of google fu you could look me up.
    Sure PM me your name with some way of verifying who you actually are and I will Apologise for not believing someone on an internet forum is not exactly who they are, and you will for calling me a troll.

    And you can also donate to our foundation Since you do not believe radiation kills,,,,, deal?

  41. #41
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Sure PM me your name with some way of verifying who you actually are and I will Apologise for not believing someone on an internet forum is not exactly who they are, and you will for calling me a troll.
    Things that you have said here were bogus, fairly rude and demonstrated basic misunderstanding of fundamental principles of science (unfortunately, many people are victims of mass media hysteria). I reserve the right to call it out, and I do not believe I have done it in any particularly rude fashion, given the nature of the internet. But I have PMed..

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    And you can also donate to our foundation Since you do not believe radiation kills,,,,, deal?
    Radiation kills all-right. Just not radiation from Japan in U.S. It is completely and utterly negligible and will have no appreciable effect whatsoever in any form or shape.
    Last edited by Axe; 01-05-2012 at 01:56 PM.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    No, I will not apologize for calling you a troll.
    Ok but I should apologise for somehow not believing you are uhmm I guess someone special? lol get ****ed

    Everything that you have said here is bogus, rude and shows basic misunderstanding of fundamental principle of science and common sense. It was insulting to me and I reserve the right to call it out. But I have PMed..
    Right ok, so again fukushima was a catostrophic disaster and a danger to America and now months later it somehow is not, lol yea, someone did miss the common sense train.


    Radiation kills all-right. Just not radiation from Japan in U.S. It is completely and utterly negligible and will have no appreciable effect whatsoever in any form or shape.[/QUOTE]

    Yes heard that before and now my bro in law is six feet under because of ******** spewed from the likes of you.

  43. #43
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Ok but I should apologise for somehow not believing you are uhmm I guess someone special? lol get ****ed


    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Right ok, so again fukushima was a catostrophic disaster and a danger to America and now months later it somehow is not.
    It never was a danger to America anywhere outside of hysterical media circus and pseudo-science attention seekers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Yes heard that before and now my bro in law is six feet under because of ******** spewed from the likes of you.
    You are completely wrong. I am sorry for your loss, but it has nothing to do with anything that we have talked about.
    Last edited by Axe; 01-05-2012 at 01:56 PM.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post




    It never was a danger to America anywhere outside of hysterical media circus and semi-literate attention seekers.
    so top physicists at the time were wrong?




    You are completely wrong. I am sorry for your loss, but it has nothing to do with anything that we have talked about.[/QUOTE]

    No he heard the same garbage you are saying but suspected as did other workers they were in more danger than they were being told. Turns out him and others were right and paid the price. But hey, anytime you have very minimal exposure and sit at a desk its always different, isnt it?

  45. #45
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    so top physicists at the time were wrong?
    No, they were not. There was never any danger to U.S. and it was clearly articulated to anybody who would listen and understand. It is a problem with mass media taking things that they do not understand well out of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    No he heard the same garbage you were spewing
    I did not spew any garbage. I am not in a habit of doing that. I am somewhat baffled by why I even maintain this conversation.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    because you know I am sincere in My belief and concern for people.


    I will say this that a degree from Stanford of your caliber is very impressive. Hell any degree from a school such as that is impressive actually

    Time will tell my friend I hope you are right



    ride safe

  47. #47
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Things that you have said here were bogus, fairly rude and demonstrated basic misunderstanding of fundamental principles of science (unfortunately, many people are victims of mass media hysteria). I reserve the right to call it out, and I do not believe I have done it in any particularly rude fashion, given the nature of the internet. But I have PMed..



    Radiation kills all-right. Just not radiation from Japan in U.S. It is completely and utterly negligible and will have no appreciable effect whatsoever in any form or shape.
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post




    It never was a danger to America anywhere outside of hysterical media circus and pseudo-science attention seekers.



    You are completely wrong. I am sorry for your loss, but it has nothing to do with anything that we have talked about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    No, they were not. There was never any danger to U.S. and it was clearly articulated to anybody who would listen and understand. It is a problem with mass media taking things that they do not understand well out of context.



    I did not spew any garbage. I am not in a habit of doing that. I am somewhat baffled by why I even maintain this conversation.


    Nicely done.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    who's trolling now az? Oh wait, you as usual.
    Last edited by Blurr; 01-11-2012 at 01:10 AM.

  49. #49
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    who's trolling now az? Oh wait, you as usual.



    Bwaaahaaa, casting aspersions about trolling. Crawl back under you bridge where you belong.

Similar Threads

  1. Wall Street Journal article on Flow Trails
    By Woodman in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-30-2011, 10:44 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-10-2008, 09:15 PM
  3. Medial Tendonitis
    By phoehn9111 in forum Rider Down, injuries and recovery
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 08:30 PM
  4. Demolition Medial Cranks
    By maximum.minimum in forum Urban/DJ/Park
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 09:15 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-11-2006, 08:58 PM

Posting Permissions

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