General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So it turns out that nadinbrzezinski was correct re Fukushima [View all]FBaggins
(28,358 posts)Why debate actual positions (particularly when they don't support your argument) when it's so much easier to build strawmen instead?
Here's what a mere five minutes found as some examples:
Less than five months after the accident - you were predicting that things would get much worse and they would have to evacuate a larger area - and that the area will have to be abandoned for agriculture for years... yet agriculture wasn't abandoned and hasn't had significant problems (the rice crop for even the following harvest was barely impacted at all).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4943771
Just a couple years ago you were still holding on to the hope that no new reactors would be build in the US... yet five are under construction and there's every indication that SMRs are on the way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112735085#post3
Likely one of the classics (and so topical for this conversation) was your defense of Arnie Gudersen's errors. Somehw you never got around to backing up the claim then that pro-nukes denied meltdowns were possible and Arnie knew what he was talking about.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112721525#post27
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):