Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Shielder View Post
    By the way, I do, as you may have guessed, work in the nuclear industry. I'm a radiation and criticality safety expert, so I believe that I do know what I'm talking about, but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says. I report the truth. It doesn't bother me if they don't like it, I say it how it is. Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But that is for another thread.
    I'm not trying to take sides here, but here's how I see it: On the one hand, you're telling us that you're an expert working in the industry. Nonetheless, you claim to be completely impartial while accusing scientist working "for the other side" to be doing this because they're being paid for it. Do you see the irony?

    Maybe you are impartial, maybe you do know what you're talking about. But let's add some conspiracy to it: Maybe you're being paid to say just that, to help protect the industry. Maybe you simply want to believe that something like this is impossible, because it would turn the world as you know it upside down.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Shielder View Post
      By the way, I do, as you may have guessed, work in the nuclear industry. I'm a radiation and criticality safety expert, so I believe that I do know what I'm talking about, but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says. I report the truth. It doesn't bother me if they don't like it, I say it how it is. Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But that is for another thread.

      Shielder=biased

      if you work in the nuclear industry then you are biased if you trolling pro nuclear FUD!

      You only do not bit the hand that feeds you!

      "but I don't 'follow the money' and say whatever my paymaster says."

      LOL only complete naive stupid people believe you! if you chance your mind then your paymaster stop sending money to you!

      " I report the truth. "

      LOL!!!!!! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!! in fukushima it was proven that the Truth don't care and even if someone report it it just dosn't matter! and if someone report "Truth" ge just is fired
      in the video there are workers Report the "REAL truth" and they are out-of-work instantly!

      "Unlike some of these so called 'experts' who will say whatever they are paid to say by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth."

      LOL!!!!!! you are really a joke! no they are not payed! but YOU ARE PAYED!

      and no greenpeace do not pay for lies.

      LOL really lol-.- but yes I've already guessed it that you are biased !

      and yes I'm not Biased!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
        I'm not trying to take sides here, but here's how I see it: On the one hand, you're telling us that you're an expert working in the industry. Nonetheless, you claim to be completely impartial while accusing scientist working "for the other side" to be doing this because they're being paid for it. Do you see the irony?

        Maybe you are impartial, maybe you do know what you're talking about. But let's add some conspiracy to it: Maybe you're being paid to say just that, to help protect the industry. Maybe you simply want to believe that something like this is impossible, because it would turn the world as you know it upside down.
        in the past i write against some payed people.-.-. i remember some microsoft payed people on kwick.de microsoft don't care about linux sides like phoronix because microsoft only care about jon doe people on facebook and in germany kwick...

        the nuclear industries payed million of people to write in forums and this is a FACT!

        its a high risk that he is one of them. he show many strategies he ignore my sources he blaming my sources to be nonsense but my sources come from high skilled people and he can not be higher skilled but he claimed he is also skilled and he is right and the other experts only do have mental cancer. only PR Lobby experts write like this.
        Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
        Nonetheless, you claim to be completely impartial while accusing scientist working "for the other side" to be doing this because they're being paid for it. Do you see the irony?
        its not irony ALL PR Lobby experts work in this way its a way to work in the puplic because without tricks he can not manipulate the people.

        and this "irony" is only a "Kunstgriff" in german a "rhetorical trick" to get a point with NO arguments.
        Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
        Maybe you're being paid to say just that, to help protect the industry. Maybe you simply want to believe that something like this is impossible, because it would turn the world as you know it upside down.
        one is for sure if I'm right then his job is gone and he lifes unter the bridge as a street bums

        this means he will always protect his "Life" no civilian accept nuclear power plants if the power plant is a "nuclear-bomb"

        this means also if he write here in privat then he is also biased because he lost his job if a nuclear power plant is a nuclear bomb weapon against the civilians.

        and one is for sure if "Neckarwestheim" blows up i'm doomed because i'm less than 15km away!

        this means he KILLS my homeland only to get his monthly payment in his job!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Shielder View Post
          nuclear
          http://www.fr-online.de/japans-katas...56,item,0.html

          this German news make sure you are out of work !

          because GREEN energy is proved CHEAPER than nuclear energy!

          "Ähnlich ist die Lage auf der französischen EPR-Baustelle in Flamanville: Die Fertigstellung dürfte sich um vier Jahre auf 2016 verschieben, Kostenpunkt ebenfalls sechs Milliarden. Der französische Rechnungshof ermittelte, dass die Kilowattstunde Strom bei dem neuen Reaktor voraussichtlich sieben bis neun Cent kosten wird."

          this means the EPR in Flamaville wille make energy for 0.09€ per kwh

          and a nuclear power plant can not handle "peak load" this means the overall costs are higher than 0.09€!

          in germany wind millers get 0.05€ per kwh ! and my own heat and power natural gas power plant get 0.08€ per kwh

          and coal is 0.04€ in germany!

          and they cut down the solar power down to 0.13€ for big solar power plants and in germany the solar power handle the peak load!

          this all means: nuclear power is expensive and dangerous!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
            you are just not an expert! an real expert say it different!

            but yes you don't understand this this fact shows you are just stupid!

            Real experts like: "Arnold Gundersen, chief engineer" pointing out that there was a nuclear explosion!

            and i prefer to believe REAL experts more than you the JOKE expert with the name "Shielder"
            Seriously, you suck. Go learn all your facts again.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Babuloseo View Post
              Seriously, you suck. Go learn all your facts again.
              sure a Biased writer payed by the nuclear industry don't suck but the one without salary check from the nuclear industry suck.

              hell yes this is how the mainstream media works!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

                a human with full mental health always plays rolls this means if you get a gun and a uniform you act a Soldier or a Police officer if you get a judge robe you act a judge
                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.


                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  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 ...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X