Nuclear bombs/accidents and the environment

[Beaufort]

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I voted no because that's not what I said. Misquoting people completely out of context betrays stupidity dishonesty and ineptitude.

 

[Beaufort]

Quote me what you said.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Quote me where I've discussed ecological benefits of nuclear weapons.

 

[Beaufort]

So you think just nuclear meltdowns are a "god send" for the environment, not nuclear bombs? Where's the difference?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What I said was that it was a god send for nature conservation in the area surrounding the plant.

The area round a nuclear bomb blast is completely destroyed. The area around chernobyl now has more lush and more plentiful wildlife than it did before. That is the difference.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Why did you attribute a claim to me about nuclear weapons that I did not make?

 

[Beaufort]

OK, so you're saying just a nuclear meltdown is a "god send" for the environment. Got it.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I can only repeat myself maybe you will never be able to understand.

What I said was that it was a god send for nature conservation in the area surrounding the plant.

The area round a nuclear bomb blast is completely destroyed. The area around chernobyl now has more lush and more plentiful wildlife than it did before. That is the difference.


Why did you attribute a claim to me about nuclear weapons that I did not make?

 

[Beaufort]

I apologise for failing to distinguish - as you very cleverly have - between the "god send" beneficial impact to the environment of a nuclear meltdown, and the blast from a nuclear weapon, which isn't too good for the environment.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

That's alright, beaufort, you completely misrepresented what I said because you didn't understand it. You probably still don't.

 

[Beaufort]

Well, you said Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment. Pretty clear-cut! I hope you wear lead undies.

 

[wurzel]

So what has this got to do with hunting ?

I am going tomorrow. Why not try and persuade me not to. Isn't that what you really, really want ?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I said it was extremely bad for people and good for the nature around the site.

Do you disagree with that? If so could you actually debate it in a sensible way rather than just constantly posting the same thing.

 

[Beaufort]

As I've said several times, you insist Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment.

My point is that anyone who claims this has little credibility.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

As I have made perfectly clear the Chernobyl disaster was an environmental catastrophy.

 

[Beaufort]

You haven't made it clear at all. You said quite the opposite:

"It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."

At least your pal Hercules agrees with you.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No I didn;t I said

"It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send." with reference to Nuclear Energy, not to chernobyl.

Read what I said.

 

[Beaufort]

"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was the best thing that ever happened. The place is now a wildlife paradise.

It's rubbish that nuclear is bad for the environment.

It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."

-------------

It is quite clear that you were referring to nuclear pollution from the Chernobyl disaster, as distinct from contained nuclear power in unaffected power stations. This is why you said that "it" (i.e. nuclear pollution) may be bad for people.

You think the Chernobyl accident was a "god send" for the environment. Hercules may agree with you but I don't.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I don't think Chernobyl was a god send for the environment. I haven';t said that and I still don't.

Nuclear may be bad for people because it gives them cancer, however environmentally it is a god send because it helps alleiviate global warming.

Rather than constantly trying to interpret what I said in a different way to what I meant by it, why don't you argue with the substantive point?

 

[Beaufort]

No, you were referring to nuclear pollution. Did you say:

"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT CHERNOBYL WAS THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED. The place is now a wildlife paradise." [my caps]

 

[Ereiam_jh]

That's the first paragraph and it says that the nuclear accident has benefited the nature conservation around chernobyl. Actually this is only indirectly because of the pollution. The polloution has kept the people away. The nature conservation benefits because of the absence of people.

The second and third paragraphs are about nuclear power being good for the environment.

The third contrasts the negative effects on people with the environmental benefits.

That's what I meant by the statements I made. You can interpret them differently if you like.

 

[Beaufort]

You said:

"However the fact remains that as far as nature is concerned it's in a much healthier state in and arond the town of Chernobyl than it was before the accident."

Did you say this or not?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Yes I've said that and words like it repeatedly.

 

[Beaufort]

You've also described the environment around Chernobyl after the accident as "a wildlife paradise".

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Yes I have, from what I understand there is loads more wildlife there now than there was before the accident. This is because of de-industrialisation and the removal of agriculture.

What's your understanding?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Here's what elena says:

"This hellish inferno became a sort of paradise for wild animals - at least on the surface. They thrive with no humans to prey upon them, but nobody fully understands how the nuclear poisons have altered their genetic makeup, the extent of their migration or their interactions with the adjacent "safe" areas. Grotesque mutations have been reported, but zoologists deny that.

Populations of wolfs and wild boars grow rapidly. They occupying the abandoned houses and sheds. They are curiously unagressive here. Maybe that has something to do with the food supply which plentiful for all species except man, but contaminated. It's not unusual to see a wolf, a fox, a wild boar or a wild deer casually crossing the road. "

 

[Paul T]

A_A, get some sleep, it will help clear that muddled mind of yours.

 

[Beaufort]

Posting at 3.14 am!!! Yes, I think I understand why poor AA seems so weird: he's starved of sleep.

Get to bed nice and early tonight, AA!

 

[Paul T]

I fear it will take rather more than a good night's sleep.