In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/15/11 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600,
wrote:

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...

You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up
the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami.

BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic?


Portugal, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have experienced them.
There probably have been other tsunamis in the Atlantic.

Maybe when your father made his trans-Atlantic trip in a 22' runabout??

On 15/03/2011 7:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600,
wrote:

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...

You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up
the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami.

BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic?

Keep in mind the Japanese nuke facility was designed by non-other than
General Electric of the USA. So how many of these problematic reactors
are there? Probably more than a few utility companies wanting to ignore
this imutable fact. How many of these reactors ARE in your back yard?

On 3/16/11 12:31 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 15/03/2011 7:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600,
wrote:

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design
for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...

You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up
the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami.

BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic?

Keep in mind the Japanese nuke facility was designed by non-other than
General Electric of the USA. So how many of these problematic reactors
are there? Probably more than a few utility companies wanting to ignore
this imutable fact. How many of these reactors ARE in your back yard?


The nukes in our neighborhood were designed by Combustion Engineering,
now owned by Westinghouse. They're close to 40 years old.

In article ,
says...

On 3/16/11 12:31 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 15/03/2011 7:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600,
wrote:

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design
for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...

You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up
the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami.

BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic?

Keep in mind the Japanese nuke facility was designed by non-other than
General Electric of the USA. So how many of these problematic reactors
are there? Probably more than a few utility companies wanting to ignore
this imutable fact. How many of these reactors ARE in your back yard?


The nukes in our neighborhood were designed by Combustion Engineering,
now owned by Westinghouse. They're close to 40 years old.

Ooops, you said yesterday that all were built by GE.....

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:43:59 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:48:02 -0300, "True North"
wrote:

Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

No, actually according to this writer, it is good.......!

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulte...port-radiation

Just for the heck of it, I read the article. To which writer were you referring?

"As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of
scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by
the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times
said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural
defense mechanisms."

Actually, it wouldn't hurt you to read the whole thing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:43:46 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:43:59 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:48:02 -0300, "True North"
wrote:

Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

No, actually according to this writer, it is good.......!

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulte...port-radiation

Just for the heck of it, I read the article. To which writer were you referring?

"As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of
scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by
the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times
said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural
defense mechanisms."

Actually, it wouldn't hurt you to read the whole thing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347

Anyone who considers Coulter a reasoned voice on anything is a bigger
idiot that she is.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:43:46 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:43:59 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:48:02 -0300, "True North"
wrote:

Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

No, actually according to this writer, it is good.......!

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulte...port-radiation

Just for the heck of it, I read the article. To which writer were you referring?

"As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of
scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by
the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times
said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural
defense mechanisms."

Actually, it wouldn't hurt you to read the whole thing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347

Anyone who considers Coulter a reasoned voice on anything is a bigger
idiot that she is.

Have you ever posted without using the word idiot? You really have
absolutely no knowledge or anything to add here at all do you?