Gingerbread Man on 28/3/2011 at 17:50
Sorry, it's me again... What were the other nuclear emergencies in the last 25 years? I assume we're talking about newsworthy events at commercial plants, and not the one or two low level events that happen in the USA every year due to hurricanes or whatnot.
st.patrick on 28/3/2011 at 19:16
Chernobyl was the only other major incident almost 25 years ago (26 April 1986), none of the others posed any threat to the population. Obviously, the Chernobyl RBMK reactor was different from the ones at Fukujima and the effects are incomparable so far.
AFAIK there was a thorough analysis and quite a reliable report about Chernobyl in NG some years ago, I might still have the issue in the attic. In the parts of Ukraine and Belarus that were hit directly by the downfall, the incidence of malformed births quadrupled over the late 80's-early 90's. Thyroid cancer and number of stillbirths rose by 5 % in European countries as a whole, regional statistics varying.
Gingerbread Man on 28/3/2011 at 20:28
So basically it's disingenuous for the media et al to be bleating on about how this is the worst nuclear emergency in a quarter of a century. Just waiting for a talking head to start on about how this is possibly the third worst commercial nuclear emergency of all time!
june gloom on 28/3/2011 at 21:01
But nuclear energy is bad, evil and wrong and will poison us all and turn us into mutants with three dicks.
Am I doing this right, Kolya?
Sulphur on 28/3/2011 at 21:08
Well if we end up with three dicks, I don't see how it could be that evil or wrong. Unless they turn out to be hemipenes; that's just disgusting.
Yakoob on 28/3/2011 at 21:11
But there's only two holes down there!
At least, two big enough to fit a dick :p
PeeperStorm on 29/3/2011 at 01:30
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Sorry, it's me again... What were the other nuclear emergencies in the last 25 years?
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_country) Wikipedia to the rescue. Note that it's really a list of all incidents costing over a certain amount of money, including workers touching live wires, precautionary shutdowns, and the like.
Kolya on 29/3/2011 at 02:07
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
You forgot my favourite part: "The new findings show that the radiation from the stricken Ukrainian reactor affected the sperm of fathers, leading to mutation in the DNA of the children. None of them showed physical deformities, because the DNA changes were slight, but the long-term effects are not known."
So, we have an article from the Guardian with a headline containing the word MUTATIONS and the fun number 600%!!!!! None of it means anything. There might be a potential increase in the chance of perhaps contracting a form of some disease. And their sperms are flying wonky.
lols at "unexpectedly high" because you know that's not a quote, it's a euphemism.
You forgot my favourite part where you engage your brain instead of your knee and understand they're talking about genetic mutations.
But if it doesn't have 3 dicks it's not a mutation for you, I get it. Can this get any more ignorant and retarded?
june gloom on 29/3/2011 at 02:49
I don't know, why don't you tell us?
Gingerbread Man on 29/3/2011 at 04:44
Oh, genetic mutations! I thought you meant something else.
