Search results for query: *

Ok, having read the whole thing, that's a lot more damning of the initial tsunami risk assessment than any of the sources I found when doing my paper. But it also makes a ton of sense. And I find myself firmly agreeing with the abstract, that we really need some sort of standards for safety...

Every Nuclear Accident I've studied have the causes down to "Human Error". Three Mile Island was entirely preventable, but there was a sticky note on top of the warning light for that exact scenario. In part because of just how obtuse the controls in general were, and in part because at the time...

Maybe, but I expect there's a reason that if I could find if I looked into it well enough. Not sure where to start looking for "Fukushima Planning Records" but if I find them I'll PM you.

Based on my research? Undetectable. No one died during the event itself and any potential increase in cancer vanished in the normal randomness of cancer. The reason we remember Three Mile Island as a terrible catastrophe is entirely because of how the media at the time reported it. "Workers...

real environmental issues are things like microplastics, where the waste goes, overfishing, etc. But it's environmentalist groups who screech about farmed fish being terrible for the environment... Fundamentally I can't take anyone calling themselves "environmentalist" seriously anymore because...

I find it incredibly hard to take Anthropogenic Climate Change seriously as a threat. It doesn't help that it's really easy to find obvious issues with the information most people present as proof... whether that's "no that Polar Bear wasn't there because global warming" or "why are you using...

you mean the facts that are based on incomplete information and outright lies?

I'd need to go looking but I'm pretty sure I've seen some satellite imagery showing a net increase in polar ice caps.