| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
poweRob
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 22703
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:35 am Post subject: Nukes safe and clean...RIGGGGGGHT! |
|
|
I'll ask anyone claiming how safe Nuke plants are to not be a NIMBY and have a nuke power plant or nuke weapons maker put in their back yard.
Quote: Colo. Landowners Win $554M in Nuclear Suit
*snip*
The lawsuit was filed in 1990 on behalf of 13,000 people, claiming the weapons plant contaminated neighboring land, lowering property values.
The now-defunct plant made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads for decades. The lawsuit claims the companies intentionally mishandled radioactive waste there and then tried to cover it up.
During the four-month trial, attorneys for the landowners presented a study showing higher rates of lung cancer near the plant. Bernick dismissed the cancer claims as "junk science," saying the study didn't indicate how long the patients had lived near Rocky Flats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kt
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 3806
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nuclear weapons should not be owned by idiots...
More practical uses for Plutonium/Uranium is in nuclear power, which is far greener and better than coal power, and does not contribute to ozone pollution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
poweRob
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 22703
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shim Eun-Ha wrote: Nuclear weapons should not be owned by idiots...
More practical uses for Plutonium/Uranium is in nuclear power, which is far greener and better than coal power, and does not contribute to ozone pollution.
Would you choose to live right next door to such a GREEN enviro friendly site?
and if not, why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
anselfir
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 23046
Location: ZzZzZzZz
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe the report is junk science, eh? What dosage do you think these people received? |
|
| Back to top |
|
poweRob
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 22703
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oneofthem wrote: Maybe the report is junk science, eh? What dosage do you think these people received?
Not sure, but I'd ask those who wound up with lung cancer first probably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
mathurin
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 7451
Location: kansas, with every muscle strained to leave
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lung cancer is caused by a huge number of things
try as we might i doubt we will find the true cause of cancer in our lifetime
for comparison, lets sue mcdonalds because we got fat, not really valid because we have at least a decent hold on why most people get fat, we know more about it than we do about cancers
is there a relationship? sure, but we cannot prove that their exposure at this site was the cause, therefore we cant prove that this company was to blame, so they cant really be held economically responsible |
|
| Back to top |
|
ieatfood
Joined: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 6505
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Firstly, showing high lung cancer doesnt mean anything
There are pockets of high lung cancer all over the country.
Statistically, some places are higher than others.
Maybe the people around the plant happenned to smoke more than others.
I dunno.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Secondly, this was about pollution. Many different things pollute. I'm sure there have been episodes of carcinogenic or otherwise harmful pollution from manufacturing plants. Does that mean we should stop manufacturing altogether? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kt
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 3806
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rob wrote: Shim Eun-Ha wrote: Nuclear weapons should not be owned by idiots...
More practical uses for Plutonium/Uranium is in nuclear power, which is far greener and better than coal power, and does not contribute to ozone pollution.
Would you choose to live right next door to such a GREEN enviro friendly site?
and if not, why?
If I ruled, nobody would live right next door, and the reactors would be properly built, underground, and monitored by TRAINED staff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
anselfir
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 23046
Location: ZzZzZzZz
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rob wrote: oneofthem wrote: Maybe the report is junk science, eh? What dosage do you think these people received?
Not sure, but I'd ask those who wound up with lung cancer first probably. yeah, you should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
David
Joined: 28 Dec 2003
Posts: 12414
Location: Louisiana
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I live less then 2 miles from the Nuclear Storage bunker at Barksdale Air Force base.Does that qualify? |
|
| Back to top |
|
poweRob
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 22703
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote: I live less then 2 miles from the Nuclear Storage bunker at Barksdale Air Force base.Does that qualify?
I noticed you never posted a pic in the Lounge of yourself. Is that because of the third eye?
Seriously though David, do you make ANY accomodations or lifestyle modifications for the fact that you live near a nuke site that other families living elsewhere might not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
David
Joined: 28 Dec 2003
Posts: 12414
Location: Louisiana
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No I don't.If one of them things went off I wouldn't know it until I woke up in front of my maker answering for anything I've done.I have had the s**t scared out of me a time or two whenever they do a scramble with those B-52's and about 14 of them take off at one time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
usuchamp
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 272
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They ought to build apartment buildings with a nuclear plant on the bottom floor. Free electricity and cleaner air. I'd move in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
