I know that people arent into this page getting snarky but I am being trolled by Scott whom we booted from this page due to his insistence that our facts are not real. Ive explained to him that this is not a page to debate nukes, that we here all believe that nukes suck and that is that. This is a page for data and info and after booting Scott, I am still getting private messages regarding his desire, I think, to debate me on the issue of nukes. I will not debate him. Why waste my time? This is a case of I have asked for the WA Dept of Health to release the study of fish in the Columbia and they have not done so. Theyve had this report since 2013. So to deflect he is all about my debating him and bringing you bad information. So I called Kevin and asked if he thought I should in the name of transparency put the troll-scussion here. So here it is. If you feel I am bringing you bad info, please let me know. But honestly, Im not sure why someone who is getting paid by the State of WA to be on our site should be allowed on our site. Hes a drag. Hes gone and Im not re-admitting him and this is so we can move on. If you dont wish to discuss this, COOOL! If you do, ok. This begins after he got the boot. Scott is able to see these comments but cannot comment on them. August 7th, 7:21am Me>I dont think you are in a place of calling out transparency. And I disagree w/ your theory regarding if you have the data why wouldnt you put it out...if the data doesnt bode well for fish, theres every reason a govt org would not want the info out there....panic. fear, upset, lack of understanding, lack of education on the subject, truth about nukes, all kinds of reasons. In the meantime, you still havent released the data. Scott:I was pointing out your hypocrisy on the subject. As for data, it isnt put out because it isnt complete. It doesnt mean anything until the QA is done. And question for you. Do you lack the conviction of your beliefs so much that you fear debate. I havent ever been rude to you despite your name calling. So why not the debate. Seems you are doing what you accuse the nuclear industry of doing. Me:I do not fear debate. The venue of NNNW is an anti-nuke site. It was not set up as place of debate. We do question each other. We bring lots of info to the table. We confront each other when some speak bullshit and dont know what theyre saying or are confused. For me, it is not debate to say that all of the events that occur at CGS are really another way of saying everything is really fine at CGS which seems to be what you say. There are people now who loved nukes who learned that nukes will kill you when the power goes down or something happens or an oversight occurs, etc. They know better. You seem to just live in a bubble. You cant admit that anything ever is or ever was bad about nukes or CGS or Hanford. Thats not debate. Thats bullshit. SCOTT:Ill take your last statement as pure ignorance since you dont know me or what I do. As for the rest, I stand by my prior statement that you are insecure about your facts and cant debate them. I can and do debate them. What is you would like to debate with me? Well, every time I disagreed or pointed out a wrong assumption on a post, I got called all sorts of things. August 7th, 5:42pm Mostly because you kept saying nothing mattered when it went down, broke or you name it. Thats because you seem to think that its the only method of monitoring. There are compensatory measures and that is why they arent listed as emergencies. But you wouldnt see that. 2 hours ago SCOTT:So, I see youre willing to talk about me when I cant defend myself. Classy. Again, I reiterate, you are afraid of debate. BTW, you never said that about 3 stacks (actually, its monitors) and I never said everything is fine. What I did say is there are back up measures in place. For the one we discussed, I pointed out that it was down for maintenance and they were REQUIRED to report it to the NRC..Guess youd rather have it that they dont have to report it, right? 48 minutes ago Me.And you, my friend, are afraid of data. Wheres the data on the study that you are all sitting on???? Get real Scott. And about those stacks...yes I have said that. Many times. And Ive spoken to the guy monitoring them as well. Scott:Well, you kind of shot yourself in the foot by being rude, but you dont get that. And yes, there are stacks in each building, each with 3 monitors on them. But yourfacts dont say that. Interferes with your narrative. As you said your facts are different from my (and the real) facts. And gee, you didnt even address the fact that: a) You wont openly debate and; b) Youre basically afraid of looking ignorant. Much easier to block someone and call names than defend your position. Me:So I am the cause of the WDOH not putting out the study?Hahahahahahaha What do you want Scott/ I know what I want. I want the report. What do you want? You dont get to have me. Scott:First, there isnt a study yet. To do that, you have to have all sampling done in order to draw a conclusion. We are still getting samples. What you want are sample results. Apparently you havent figured out that doing gamma spec analysis isnt pointing the probe at your sample and it tells you everything init with 100% confidence. As for what Id like? How about some accuracy on your part? You spend your time making accusations and attack anyone who say anything different. And you are still not answering my question. You are doing what you accuse the government of doing.
Posted on: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:26:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015