Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I've quoted the article headline directly, you must have missed it with the blinders on:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

you need to look at the addendum that was added after it was published to see what they are comparing it too:


It's also against the law to withhold evidence. If you accuse someone of murder and not tell the jury the guy was being beaten with a sledge hammer when he pulled the trigger you're trying to manipulate the jury. It's the truth but without the whole truth it's pretty pointless. You're doing the same thing when you say coal ash radioactive.

The full truth is that if a nuclear power plant emitted the same amount of radioactivity as a coal fired plant, the NRC would take regulatory action and make them fix the problem. Let's just hold coal fired plants to the same level of radioactive discharge that we hold nuclear plants too.

BTW, you're wrong on the law.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Updated: December 22, 2008 - 230 pages listing 650 names, credentials and comments. Must be all industry hacks right?

Thank you for this. VERY impressive list of people (not hacks by any means) who disagree on global warming.

Reps to you

[thecoalman]

Why should the power plant and in turn the public have to pay enormous expense for something that is so benign? If we held every industry up to the standards of a nuclear plant regulations we'd be spending enormous amounts of money for little benefit. Certainly if you're going to spend money on "fixing" something you could agree it should be spent on something worthy? You're grasping at straws here, strict standards for nuclear plants are in place because of the potential for an enormous disaster if it's not tightly controlled.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Why should the power plant and in turn the public have to pay enormous expense for something that is so benign? If we held every industry up to the standards of a nuclear plant regulations we'd be spending enormous amounts of money for little benefit. Certainly if you're going to spend money on "fixing" something you could agree it should be spent on something worthy? You're grasping at straws here, strict standards for nuclear plants are in place because of the potential for an enormous disaster if it's not tightly controlled.

It's not considered benign by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[thecoalman]

I would hope they would consider it a very large issue within the context of a nuclear power plant as that would be an indicator of fundamental flaws in the containment system that could pose a serious threat. It's apples an oranges though, the coal plant blows up nobody is going to die from radiation poisoning but if the reactor blows up it could effect millions or even tens of millions depending on its location.