Racer, you would have better luck getting through to people if you didn't come across as a scum of the earth condescending c**t. Can't this pr**k just get banned?

I can't even put into words how much of a ****ing idiot Racer is. He keeps going on about how we're all sheep, we watch the X factor (who watches the ****ing Xfactor anyway, thats the biggest insult to me), we believe everything the government/media spoon feed us, and we can't think for ourselves. Of course, we all know this is bullshit, I can think for myself, I don't believe everything I hear, I don't watch the ****ing X Factor. Yes, there are people who blindly accept what they're told, but I definitely don't.

Racer, on the other hand, is the biggest sheep. If something is on the news, he immediately dismisses it as bullshit. He happily swallows up everything the conspiracy websites spoon feed him, without thinking it through for himself, without actually looking at both sides of the argument, without engaging his ****ing brain. Then, he comes on here and acts like everyone else is the idiot. You're ****ing braindead Racer. You call us idiots for not believing your conspiracy theorist bullshit, yet you're the real ****ing idiot for mindlessly believing everything some 13 year old writes on his conspiracy website.

F**k off Racer, you're nothing but a pollution. If this is what you're like in real life, I pity you.

You will get a ban for that and it will be removed but I can't help but agree with everything you say 150% and it shouldn't be deleted and you shouldn't be banned or infracted. Even if it is removed I will remember it forever.

I think I should bow to you because that's just awesome.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

You will get a ban for that and it will be removed but I can't help but agree with everything you say 150% and it shouldn't be deleted and you shouldn't be banned or infracted. Even if it is removed I will remember it forever.

I think I should bow to you because that's just awesome.

Quick, everybody quote it now and remove in that quote the link so you can read it in the future!

I do agree to an extent. He is the anticulture. Thing is, the anti-culture ends up just being like the night to the day. (the same thing, just slightly different)

Deko - LOL, Clearly humour and irony are words you need to look up in a dictionary. But still, a good rant.

I do believe that it was YOUR media that was suggesting that iodine 131 came from a galaxy far, far away, or was due to people undergoing chemo farting a lot........

And I'm sure that many people were happy to believe this, So whats your explination for these readings ?

It may be from a Ukraine nuclear plant, I don't know.

And I also understand that many people are happy believing that nuclear power is safe and I'm a dickhead for suggesting otherwise. Nothing we didn't go though in NZ until the evidence convinced the majority of the population that that point of view was incorrect based on scientific fact.

Interesting to read that most of my opposition comes from people in countries that believe that using depleted uranium and invading countries to get access to their resources is accepted business practice.

HTF did radiation get to scandinavia?


Härre gud!

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Deko - LOL, Clearly humour and irony are words you need to look up in a dictionary. But still, a good rant.

I do believe that it was YOUR media that was suggesting that iodine 131 came from a galaxy far, far away, or was due to people undergoing chemo farting a lot........

And I'm sure that many people were happy to believe this, So whats your explination for these readings ?

It may be from a Ukraine nuclear plant, I don't know.

And I also understand that many people are happy believing that nuclear power is safe and I'm a dickhead for suggesting otherwise. Nothing we didn't go though in NZ until the evidence convinced the majority of the population that that point of view was incorrect based on scientific fact.

Interesting to read that most of my opposition comes from people in countries that believe that using depleted uranium and invading countries to get access to their resources is accepted business practice.

Ignore Deko, he clearly has social problems when interacting with opinions that he doesn't understand or agree with.

Eitherway I completely understand what you are saying in that something has to come from somewhere and alot of people ARE satisfied without actually knowing the details of something that could inherently harm them.

Although in this case, it's not serious and I don't blame anyone for being satisfied for not having any answers, cos nobody cares enough to ask the question in the first place.

Quote from Hyperactive :

I think it is simply all about people needing some kind of explanation. Even if the explanation is plain idiotic in itself it is still better than nothing. Also I believe that most people simply aren't willing to put in time and effort to get a good explanation but instead any explanation works just as long there is one. And preferrably a really simple one...

There is always the good example. Whether it is the ufos, flocks of birds dying in large groups, strange sounds coming from underground or just people reading something from the internet. There is and has to be some kind of explanation. And the explanation usually needs to be simple so it can be understood in 4 seconds. Like trying to understand evolution by replacing it by idiotic design or trying to come up an explanation for the big bang.

Exactly, the armchair psychologist in me likes to think that the human mind likes to categorise everything it experiences into little labelled boxes, whether it be fashion styles, music, natural phenomena or political leanings etc. And once something is in its box it can be explained, understood and we can form whichever opinions or emotions from it we feel comfortable with.

We get really unsettled when we're presented with something or we can't categorise, because if we can't clearly define it then we cant rationalise and explain it, and people react to this kind of thing in different ways ranging from curiosity to hate and hysteria. And in our scramble to try and define such an unknown quantity as a major earthquake or nuclear disaster, some of us find comfort in filing it under the 'multinational government conspiracy' section in our minds, because that provides us with a comforting explanation to what are essentially random forces of nature we have at best a very tenuous handle on. And once we have these things filed in our minds we take in all the evidence which best fits the comforting little boxes of conclusions in our minds and reject all the evidence to the contrary, regardless of how weak the evidence is either way. In other words we develop a confirmation bias to help strengthen the structure of our beliefs and opinions we have formed in our brains.

While I'd agree with a lot of what your saying I do disagree with the concept that earthquakes/tsunami's etc are a conspiracy theory. Evidence suggests that such things happen frequently and it's simply human arrogance to suggest that these are in some way unusual, or unexpected.

We, as humans, appear to believe that we are in control and know all there is to know. This leads to arrogance and the belief that we can control nature and build structures that are impervious to disasters.

There is a great deal of scientific research that suggests that nuclear discharge is harmful to lifeforms, not just human, but all beings. Do we have the right to leave this legacy to future generations, I believe not but others disagree.

Why don't radiologists remain in the same room as people undergoing xrays, because exposure to radiation is cumulative and has scientificly proven results.

Whilst there is a great deal of argument regarding Chernobil's effects and death toll, under 50 officially, far higher according to other reports, any scientific experiment shows radiation affects humans and in not a good way.

So, as radiation is proven harmful, why build nuclear plants on faultlines, in tsunami prone areas etc.

And, if people cannot guarantee, 100% that they're not harming future generations, who have no say in our actions, why do it ?

The only arrogance I really see is you behaving in a manner that Deko described.

However when you say "as radiation is proven harmful, why build nuclear plants on faultlines, in tsunami prone areas etc."

Which in itself is a fair enough comment and also reads that you're not against nuclear power, but rather nuclear power stations in high-risk natural distaster areas. That would be good because it would a) satisfy your "omg radiation kills u!1!/!@@11!" theory but also satisfies most people's desire for clean and dependable energy.

But with a Tsunami, a conspiracy theory? Yeah Obama got my Mum to jump in the sea and create a massive wave to take out half of Fukishima or whatever it is...probably true

Keep taking the medication dude !

Shall we try a rational, scientific discussion about the health benifits of radiation or is your sole argument abuse ?
Up to you mate.

for anyone worried about going to Japan, or even Fukushima, please don't, it really isn't that dangerous, i have been back to Fukushima a few times since the nuclear issue once only weeks after it happened, and did more than enough research to be sure there was no danger. Fukushima needs tourism more than ever, and if any one who loves their motorsport was thinking of heading to Ebisu Circuit, it is still functioning as well as usual, in fact we had probably 100 foreigners at the last Drift Matsuri.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Keep taking the medication dude !

Shall we try a rational, scientific discussion about the health benifits of radiation or is your sole argument abuse ?
Up to you mate.

are we discussing health benefits? didn't know it was fdaa approved. it's a fuel, no-one prescribes petrol as a treatment for a cold do they...they use it to fuel their cars. if you drank loads of petrol you'd die so it's the same thing.

i'm happy to have a rational, non scientific (because i'm not a scientist and neither are you) debate/discussion but you'll just read your anti-nuclear websites and paste a load of made up statistics

so for now i'm sticking with abuse.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

so for now i'm sticking with abuse.

Unfortunatly, about what I'd expect, but I'm a cynic

So, in the optimistic expectation we can move this up a level, in what way will radiation exposure make people in japan, to choose an obvious example, lives better.

Look at the birth statistics in Faluga and explain rationally how their lives are better.

Please try to have an intelligent conversation here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f ... mbedded&v=byO6lzMblC8
http://brainz.org/ten-most-radioactive-places-earth/

Quote from Racer X NZ :

http://brainz.org/ten-most-radioactive-places-earth/

Sweet! I live at number 6. And no, I'm not even vaguely concerned. The biggest risk Sellafield poses to the area is the complete desolation of the jobs market when it's gone.

So there will never be a natural disaster in the UK, never a tsunami or any other issue, other than " The plant releases some 8 million liters of contaminated waste into the sea on a daily basis, making the Irish Sea the most radioactive sea in the world. England is known for its green fields and rolling landscapes, but nestled in the heart of this industrialized nation is a toxic, accident-prone facility, spewing dangerous waste into the oceans of the world." and there are no jobs that aren't in a nuclear plant. Seem's a blinkered view but fair enough if that's what you believe.

Lets look around, after all Japan has shown that nuclear power is safe and fun, lets see how other areas in the world are.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a ... icas-most-vulnerable.html
http://www.spectacle.org/0411/nukes.html
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte ... e-zones-overlap-in-the-us
http://www.quakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/Hazard_UK.htm

Quote from Racer X NZ :

So there will never be a natural disaster in the UK, never a tsunami or any other issue, other than " The plant releases some 8 million liters of contaminated waste into the sea on a daily basis, making the Irish Sea the most radioactive sea in the world. England is known for its green fields and rolling landscapes, but nestled in the heart of this industrialized nation is a toxic, accident-prone facility, spewing dangerous waste into the oceans of the world." and there are no jobs that aren't in a nuclear plant. Seem's a blinkered view but fair enough if that's what you believe.

No, there will never be a tsunami in England because it's shielded by Ireland (thanks Ireland, by the way). Nor will there be an earthquake or any other major tectonic event.

You're kinda trampling all over your own argument there. You're right, England is known for its green fields and rolling landscapes. Sellafield is in the locality of one of the most spectacular parts of England, and has been for the past 55 years - and the presence of the plant hasn't done a damn thing to degrade the beauty of the countryside over those decades. What it has done is provide vast amounts of economical, relatively clean energy whilst singlehandly reconstucting a local economy that was left in ruins by the fall of mining.

Quote from mythdat :

No, there will never be a tsunami in England because it's shielded by Ireland (thanks Ireland, by the way). Nor will there be an earthquake or any other major tectonic event.

You're kinda trampling all over your own argument there. You're right, England is known for its green fields and rolling landscapes. Sellafield is in the locality of one of the most spectacular parts of England, and has been for the past 55 years - and the presence of the plant hasn't done a damn thing to degrade the beauty of the countryside over those decades. What it has done is provide vast amounts of economical, relatively clean energy whilst singlehandly reconstucting a local economy that was left in ruins by the fall of mining.

Orly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T ... fecting_the_British_Isles

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Lets look around, after all Japan has shown that nuclear power is safe and fun, lets see how other areas in the world are.

I thought it did prove just that. Nothing like the total end of the world happened despite major breakdown of the plant itself, some mishandling of the used fuel (or whatever it was), the nuclear plant being hit by a huge earthquake and 30 feet tall tsunami. The cooling system breaking, lack of information from the japanese officials among other things. Who many were killed and how was the environment exactly totally detroyed in this catastrophic theatre of nukular destruction that apparently happened?

If you are worried about the environment shouldn't you be more worried about stuff like bhopal happening again instead of being afraid of radiation?

I find the anti nuclear power people almost too mental to be taken seriously at times. Sometimes when you hear news about someone falling in stairs in some nuclear facility it makes these anti nuclear people crap 2 weeks of crap in their pants pretty much instantly but the death and destruction to people and nature in chemical and oil industry doesn't even make their buttocks flop.

Quote from lap traffic nz :

Orly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T ... fecting_the_British_Isles

What's your point? If anything that proves just how tiny the tsunami risk is.

Quote from mythdat :

What's your point? If anything that proves just how tiny the tsunami risk is.

Just like nuclear power, the risk maybe tiny. But would you take that risk knowing what might happen?

OK, lets play the proof game. Do I expect that some people would rather avoid/abuse me for this, lets see ?????

So, nuclear energy is completely safe ( ok ), there's really no chance of an accident/ balls up, Britain has never had earthquakes/ tsunamis, just ignore the evidence and, wow, your right !

Lets take a first look at the dropping of the bombs on Japan during WW part 2
Try actually reading what is posted, if your not a troll/employed to disagree with me then this might help to educate you.

In 1947 Albert Einstein wrote:
"Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since the prehistoric discovery of fire. This basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and there is no defense, there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.
"We scientists recognize our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of atomic energy and its implications for society. In this lies our only security and our only hope—we believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not death."

Please read all of this.
http://nucleardemolition.com/Killing_Our_Own.pdf

Quote from lap traffic nz :

Just like nuclear power, the risk maybe tiny. But would you take that risk knowing what might happen?

Yes.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

OK, lets play the proof game. Do I expect that some people would rather avoid/abuse me for this, lets see ?????

So, nuclear energy is completely safe ( ok ), there's really no chance of an accident/ balls up, Britain has never had earthquakes/ tsunamis, just ignore the evidence and, wow, your right !

Lets take a first look at the dropping of the bombs on Japan during WW part 2
Try actually reading what is posted, if your not a troll/employed to disagree with me then this might help to educate you.

In 1947 Albert Einstein wrote:
"Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since the prehistoric discovery of fire. This basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and there is no defense, there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.
"We scientists recognize our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of atomic energy and its implications for society. In this lies our only security and our only hope—we believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not death."

Please read all of this.
http://nucleardemolition.com/Killing_Our_Own.pdf

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan is irrelevant, that was a deliberate use of atomic energy specifically for warfare. Knives are occasionally use to kill people, does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to have them in our kitchen?

Nowhere did I say that nuclear energy is 100% safe. And I'm not ignoring the evidence. The evidence supports me - If you can only find a handful of examples of earthquakes or tsunamis in England of a relevant magnitude in the last thousands of years then that is so small an occurrence that it is considered statistically insignificant.

This is all about risk/reward. Yes there have been a small number of accidents with nuclear power - and when there are accidents they tend to be very high profile. Pound for pound, nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest and most cost effective way of satisfying our planet's thirst for electricity. The burning of fossil fuels causes infinitely more damage to the environment than nuclear power does. It could be argued that wind farms and some forms of hydroelectric power also do.

Just because something has risk attached to it, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it - if that was the case then we as a race would never have created fire or even ventured out of our caves. Like it or not, even if you'd have preferred to be born as a deer or a badger or a marmot or something, you were born into a race which is driven towards relentless progression. Progression always comes at a cost.

Don't forget that most major forms of energy production carry some risk, coal dust and gas can explode, dams can burst and even wind turbines can violently disintegrate. Also no nuclear reactor design is equal, most newer reactors rely on the coolant water to bounce neutrons back at the core or slow them to the point that allows fission to happen, and as such when these reactors lose coolant the reaction actually slows to a halt. Older reactor designs such as Fukushima and Chernobyl are of older, inferior and more dangerous designs wherein the reaction can continue in spite of a loss or overheating of coolant allowing the reactor core to get dangerously hot.

As such its a sweeping generalisation to consider all nuclear reactors to be too risky for practical application, infact if you want to be really pedantic there are swimming pool type reactors that are so stable they can be left running unattended overnight, unfortunately reactors of this type are only useful for research.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

So, nuclear energy is completely safe ( ok )

No one has said that.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

there's really no chance of an accident/ balls up, Britain has never had earthquakes/ tsunamis, just ignore the evidence and, wow, your right !

Again, why the complete polarization of the subject? Why has it have to be never or all the time?

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Lets take a first look at the dropping of the bombs on Japan during WW part 2
Try actually reading what is posted, if your not a troll/employed to disagree with me then this might help to educate you.

Please educate me. What does actually happen when a nuclear power plant is bombed? If some war time scenario is the ace in your pocket then let's play that card.

Do you think the nuclear plant would explode like a nuclear bomb?