Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Physical Sciences

Physical Sciences Dangerous meddling in things man was not meant to know. Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2011, 09:17 AM   #1338266  /  #51
rmacfarl
DAG and proud of it
 
rmacfarl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: World's most liveable city - still!
Posts: 10,086
rmacfarl
Default

a lot more than in most parts of Russia
rmacfarl is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 09:27 AM   #1338269  /  #52
Plumjam
Senior Member
 
Plumjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 161
Plumjam
Default

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

A defence of nuclear power is that when there's a disaster, once the initial creatures (human and other) have died from the initial radiation burst, well... you know... some animals and plants move back into the contaminated area.

Yeah.
That's because the plants and animals are fucking stupid, and they can seed and run around completely oblivious.

Last edited by Plumjam; 03-13-2011 at 09:29 AM.
Plumjam is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 09:36 AM   #1338270  /  #53
rmacfarl
DAG and proud of it
 
rmacfarl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: World's most liveable city - still!
Posts: 10,086
rmacfarl
Default

Look, you can be an idiot, or you can open your eyes a bit.

Nothing I said was a defence of nuclear power, fuck-knuckle. But implying the coal industry is safe is just so much bullshit and deserves to be called on it too.

And it's ironic, but factual, that one of the best places for wildlife in Ukraine / Russia / Belarus is an area that's been evacuated of all people because of the Chernobyl disaster. Just like the DMZ being a wildlife haven on the Korean peninsula.

Try admitting a smidgeon of grey into your worldview and you'll find it becomes both more interesting, and nearer to reality.
rmacfarl is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 09:47 AM   #1338273  /  #54
Plumjam
Senior Member
 
Plumjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 161
Plumjam
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacfarl View Post
Look, you can be an idiot, or you can open your eyes a bit.

Nothing I said was a defence of nuclear power, fuck-knuckle. But implying the coal industry is safe is just so much bullshit and deserves to be called on it too.

And it's ironic, but factual, that one of the best places for wildlife in Ukraine / Russia / Belarus is an area that's been evacuated of all people because of the Chernobyl disaster. Just like the DMZ being a wildlife haven on the Korean peninsula.

Try admitting a smidgeon of grey into your worldview and you'll find it becomes both more interesting, and nearer to reality.
Seems like I upset you.

I haven't said anything about the coal industry, other than to imply that the worst of coal industry accidents will not render hundreds of square miles of the planet unsuitable for human habitation possibly for centuries.

Strange also that people seek to present this as simply nuclear vs. coal, as if coal were the only other energy source available to humanity.

Maybe in 30 years you can go on a very quick safari holiday to the Fukushima area. Be sure to pack the telephoto lens.

Last edited by Plumjam; 03-13-2011 at 09:51 AM.
Plumjam is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:01 AM   #1338276  /  #55
th1nk3r
ɹǝqɯǝɯ ɹoıuǝs
DeflectoBall Champion, European Football Clubs Champion
 
th1nk3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,437
th1nk3r
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
the worst of coal industry accidents will not render hundreds of square miles of the planet unsuitable for human habitation possibly for centuries.
no, coal will not do that in a worst case scenario, it does it on a regular basis.

__________________
/
th1nk3r is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:09 AM   #1338280  /  #56
Plumjam
Senior Member
 
Plumjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 161
Plumjam
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by th1nk3r View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
the worst of coal industry accidents will not render hundreds of square miles of the planet unsuitable for human habitation possibly for centuries.
no, coal will not do that in a worst case scenario, it does it on a regular basis.

Doesn't look like hundreds of square miles to me.
And if someone wants to live there they can easily do so, and without them having to worry about their teeth falling into their soup bowl.

I'm starting to think this defence of nuclear power is strangely ideological.

Making light of worst-case consequences that are orders of magnitude worse than those of the alternatives.
Plumjam is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:10 AM   #1338281  /  #57
th1nk3r
ɹǝqɯǝɯ ɹoıuǝs
DeflectoBall Champion, European Football Clubs Champion
 
th1nk3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,437
th1nk3r
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post

Apparently the wildlife around Chernobyl is doing just fine. Turns out radiation is far less of a threat than just humans hunting them and destroying their habitat.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...chernobyl.html
How much of that wildlife would expect to live to 70 years old or more?
Actually it seems like exposure to some radiation may be beneficial.

Radiation is horrible and dangerous at high levels, but the dose really does make the poison, like any other substance, or even water for that matter. Life on earth developed in a sea of radiation and responds to it in such a way as to produce strong positive effects. Just google hormesis.

Low levels of radiation are associated with higher cancer rates, increased birth defects, and decreased lifespan. From about 3 mSv to 50 mSv cancer and birth defects decrease significantly and lifespan increases. Above that, the harmful effect begins again. Some have speculated that there is a minimum amount required for a more healthful life.


Effects of Cobalt-60 Exposure on Health of Taiwan Residents Suggest New Approach Needed in Radiation Protection


Quote:
Abstract
The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9–20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced—to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced—to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model. Information about this Taiwan experience should be communicated to the public worldwide to help allay its fear of radiation and create a positive impression about important radiation applications. Expenditures of many billions of dollars in nuclear reactor operation could be saved and expansion of nuclear electricity generation could be facilitated. In addition, this knowledge would encourage further investigation and implementation of very important applications of total-body, low-dose irradiation to treat and cure many illnesses, including cancer. The findings of this study are such a departure from expectations, based on ICRP criteria, that we believe that they ought to be carefully reviewed by other, independent organizations and that population data not available to the authors be provided, so that a fully qualified epidemiologically-valid analysis can be made. Many of the confounding factors that limit other studies used to date, such as the A-bomb survivors, the Mayak workers and the Chernobyl evacuees, are not present in this population exposure. It should be one of the most important events on which to base radiation protection standards.
__________________
/
th1nk3r is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:12 AM   #1338282  /  #58
th1nk3r
ɹǝqɯǝɯ ɹoıuǝs
DeflectoBall Champion, European Football Clubs Champion
 
th1nk3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,437
th1nk3r
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Doesn't look like hundreds of square miles to me.
Move to Alberta.

__________________
/

Last edited by th1nk3r; 03-13-2011 at 10:17 AM.
th1nk3r is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:26 AM   #1338286  /  #59
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 24,937
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacfarl View Post
Look, you can be an idiot, or you can open your eyes a bit.

Nothing I said was a defence of nuclear power, fuck-knuckle. But implying the coal industry is safe is just so much bullshit and deserves to be called on it too.

And it's ironic, but factual, that one of the best places for wildlife in Ukraine / Russia / Belarus is an area that's been evacuated of all people because of the Chernobyl disaster. Just like the DMZ being a wildlife haven on the Korean peninsula.

Try admitting a smidgeon of grey into your worldview and you'll find it becomes both more interesting, and nearer to reality.
Seems like I upset you.

I haven't said anything about the coal industry, other than to imply that the worst of coal industry accidents will not render hundreds of square miles of the planet unsuitable for human habitation possibly for centuries.

Strange also that people seek to present this as simply nuclear vs. coal, as if coal were the only other energy source available to humanity.

Maybe in 30 years you can go on a very quick safari holiday to the Fukushima area. Be sure to pack the telephoto lens.
Have you seen much of West Virginia? There they engage in the practice of 'topping', basically taking off the tops of hills and mountains to get at the coal. It's an advanced variation of strip mining. That's pretty awesome in and of itself.

I'd also suggest you look into the effects of acid rain throughout the world. Those include deforestation and nearly a complete sterilization of lakes and their distributary rivers. This has occurred not over just hundreds of square miles, but thousands of square miles and damage sites are spread throughout the world.

I am strongly opposed to the construction of new uranium powered plants, but just as strongly opposed to the use of coal and oil. There are alternatives, thorium is one of them. However, the most likely source of energy in the future, at least that not harvested from our own sun or geothermal, is fusion. A couple of years ago the Director of the National Ignition Facility at Livermore, CA was quoted as saying functional fusion would happen in 2012 with a commercial prototype by 2020. How reliable that prediction is anybody's guess but it would be good if it were as 2012 is the Pentagon's best estimate of Peak Oil. After that, discovery and development of new crude sources is likely to begin to decline while demand will likely continue to increase strongly. That means oil is going to get more and more expensive, at a far more rapid rate than any we have experienced in the past. That will have a devastating effect on most economies based upon oil as a major energy source. Which in turn will likely have negative effects upon the environment in general and the quality of life of large numbers of people.
__________________
Invent the Future
RAFH is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:26 AM   #1338287  /  #60
Y.B
Exapno Mapcase
 
Y.B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,270
Y.B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Strange also that people seek to present this as simply nuclear vs. coal, as if coal were the only other energy source available to humanity.
Y.B is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:38 AM   #1338289  /  #61
Plumjam
Senior Member
 
Plumjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 161
Plumjam
Default

th1nk3r, if you believe all that then I suggest you move your family to an area of raised radiation level, for the good of their health.

Call me cynical if you like, but I would cast serious doubt on something such as this:

Quote:
An intensive research program was conducted in 1998, and more than 1600 apartments were finally documented by the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) of Taiwan.
finding that
Quote:
chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health
and therefore

Quote:
Information about this Taiwan experience should be communicated to the public worldwide to help allay its fear of radiation and create a positive impression about important radiation applications. Expenditures of many billions of dollars in nuclear reactor operation could be saved and expansion of nuclear electricity generation could be facilitated.
Gotta love those entirely disinterested Atomic Energy Councils and their 'studies'.

Completely laughable.


Not that that has anything to do with nuclear meltdown in Japan, of course.

Last edited by Plumjam; 03-13-2011 at 11:03 AM.
Plumjam is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:40 AM   #1338290  /  #62
Autonemesis
Flipper Offer
 
Autonemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 16,671
Autonemesis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam
You seem to have a strange emotional attachment to a particular form of energy production.

Seems like I upset you.
Your mind-reading skills suck. Stick to demagoguery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Strange also that people seek to present this as simply nuclear vs. coal, as if coal were the only other energy source available to humanity.
Well it would be stupid to compare the safety of nuclear power to the safety of over the counter medications. How are we to assess the relative safety of nuclear power for stationary electricity generation if we don't compare it to the technology it would replace? Most of the US electricity generation is powered by coal. That's what nuclear would replace if it were widely implemented. It makes perfect sense to anyone who knows a thing about energy production and risk assessment to compare nuclear to coal. That coal is so filthy and destructive of the environment is a primary reason why nuclear is so attractive, despite the expense.

But feel free to stun us with your knowledge of the alternatives to coal.
__________________
As if.

Last edited by Autonemesis; 03-13-2011 at 10:42 AM.
Autonemesis is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 10:46 AM   #1338291  /  #63
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 24,937
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by th1nk3r View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
the worst of coal industry accidents will not render hundreds of square miles of the planet unsuitable for human habitation possibly for centuries.
no, coal will not do that in a worst case scenario, it does it on a regular basis.

Doesn't look like hundreds of square miles to me.
And if someone wants to live there they can easily do so, and without them having to worry about their teeth falling into their soup bowl.

I'm starting to think this defence of nuclear power is strangely ideological.

Making light of worst-case consequences that are orders of magnitude worse than those of the alternatives.
Have you any idea of the effects of such mining? Apparently not. The tailings are often highly toxic. The ground waters that end up flooding these pits also becomes polluted.

No, one could not live there without the fear of their teeth falling into their soup. Well, maybe they could, because their teeth would have already done so.

Look, we aren't defending nuclear power, it sucks. But it sucks less than the use of coal. You should check out the environment in much of developed China. For the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese had to massively restructure their power system so the smog wouldn't be so bad. In many places, it's worse than London or LA ever got and getting worse.

The issue is not what is wonderful but what is the lesser of many possible evils. The mining and burning of coal is bad. And it does have long term effects that are similar to those of a nuclear event, but the difference is those effects are inherent effects, not the result of something going wrong. The worst side effect of using uranium fission is the resulting waste. There's currently no viable means of dealing with it, so it's sitting in massive storage ponds all over the place and if there were ever a target for terrorists, those ponds are it. Many hold millions of gallons of waste liquids which if they get into the aquifers (and they are) spell serious trouble, not to mention the damage they would do to the surface.

For far too long we've allowed energy issues to be decided by corporate and military interests, which often have priorities that conflict with human needs. It's time that stopped. One example is the siting of nuclear plants along shorelines. Why? Because cooling using sea or lake or river water is cheap, compared to the air towers otherwise required. Well, cheap for the operators of the plants, not so cheap for the various users, including life other than humans, of the shorelines such plants are located on.
__________________
Invent the Future

Last edited by RAFH; 03-13-2011 at 10:50 AM.
RAFH is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 11:01 AM   #1338294  /  #64
Plumjam
Senior Member
 
Plumjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 161
Plumjam
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autonemesis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam
You seem to have a strange emotional attachment to a particular form of energy production.

Seems like I upset you.
Your mind-reading skills suck. Stick to demagoguery.
I see you're taking it upon yourself to feel offended and answer for others. You must be feeling terribly bored with life.

Demagoguery? That's a bit of an overreaction.
Hopefully you can avoid a meltdown.
Plumjam is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 11:08 AM   #1338296  /  #65
th1nk3r
ɹǝqɯǝɯ ɹoıuǝs
DeflectoBall Champion, European Football Clubs Champion
 
th1nk3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,437
th1nk3r
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
th1nk3r, if you believe all that then I suggest you move your family to an area of raised radiation level, for the good of their health.
Actually 40 miles from my town there's an old Uranium mine, it's been closed for about 8 years or so but while it was still open it was subjected to numerous studies. That village has had minor radiation in the water for centuries and the studies have shown that they don't have more cancer or birth defects than the rest of the country. The only people with shortened life spans were the ones working directly in the mine, and not because of the uranium but because of exposure to dust and other issues that you have in any other kind of mine.
__________________
/
th1nk3r is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 11:20 AM   #1338297  /  #66
Autonemesis
Flipper Offer
 
Autonemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 16,671
Autonemesis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autonemesis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam
You seem to have a strange emotional attachment to a particular form of energy production.

Seems like I upset you.
Your mind-reading skills suck. Stick to demagoguery.
I see you're taking it upon yourself to feel offended
You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

Quote:
You must be feeling terribly bored with life.



Quote:
Demagoguery? That's a bit of an overreaction.
Hopefully you can avoid a meltdown.
__________________
As if.
Autonemesis is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 11:22 AM   #1338298  /  #67
Autonemesis
Flipper Offer
 
Autonemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 16,671
Autonemesis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Look, we aren't defending nuclear power, it sucks. But it sucks less than the use of coal.
And less than burning wood while crouching naked in a mud hut.
__________________
As if.
Autonemesis is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 11:26 AM   #1338299  /  #68
Plumjam
Senior Member
 
Plumjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 161
Plumjam
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autonemesis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Look, we aren't defending nuclear power, it sucks. But it sucks less than the use of coal.
And less than burning wood while crouching naked in a mud hut.
At least you have the internet in your mud hut.
Plumjam is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 12:16 PM   #1338306  /  #69
rmacfarl
DAG and proud of it
 
rmacfarl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: World's most liveable city - still!
Posts: 10,086
rmacfarl
Default

lame troll is lame
rmacfarl is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 01:02 PM   #1338327  /  #70
buttershug
Hung
Zaptonia Defense Champion, Summer Sports Match Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Budapest Defenders Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Flash RPG Tower Defense Champion
 
buttershug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,725
buttershug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by th1nk3r View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
the worst of coal industry accidents will not render hundreds of square miles of the planet unsuitable for human habitation possibly for centuries.
no, coal will not do that in a worst case scenario, it does it on a regular basis.

Doesn't look like hundreds of square miles to me.
And if someone wants to live there they can easily do so, and without them having to worry about their teeth falling into their soup bowl.

I'm starting to think this defence of nuclear power is strangely ideological.

Making light of worst-case consequences that are orders of magnitude worse than those of the alternatives.
At least with nuclear it's contained.
The damage from coal is less acute but it is global in nature.
Take the percentage damage and multiply by the area.
With Chernobyl, a lot of area would be 100% but it's only a small per centage of the Earth.
Even smoking will probably do more radiation damage in Japan than the melt down.
Eating bananas probably gave Americans more radiation exposure that year than TMI did.
buttershug is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 02:45 PM   #1338382  /  #71
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 24,937
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autonemesis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Look, we aren't defending nuclear power, it sucks. But it sucks less than the use of coal.
And less than burning wood while crouching naked in a mud hut.
Well, not necessarily. Depends on who you are crouching naked with and what's on the agenda for the night. TV is probably out, and nice background music on the stereo as well, though a small MP3 player wouldn't be too much to ask. Perhaps you have some wine chilling in one of these http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/...o-electricity/. A couple of candles, some incense, a pile of nice firs and blankets on the floor; mudhuts are all that bad under the right conditions.
__________________
Invent the Future
RAFH is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 02:47 PM   #1338384  /  #72
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 24,937
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by th1nk3r View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumjam View Post
the worst of coal industry accidents will not render hundreds of square miles of the planet unsuitable for human habitation possibly for centuries.
no, coal will not do that in a worst case scenario, it does it on a regular basis.

Doesn't look like hundreds of square miles to me.
And if someone wants to live there they can easily do so, and without them having to worry about their teeth falling into their soup bowl.

I'm starting to think this defence of nuclear power is strangely ideological.

Making light of worst-case consequences that are orders of magnitude worse than those of the alternatives.
At least with nuclear it's contained.
The damage from coal is less acute but it is global in nature.
Take the percentage damage and multiply by the area.
With Chernobyl, a lot of area would be 100% but it's only a small per centage of the Earth.
Even smoking will probably do more radiation damage in Japan than the melt down.
Eating bananas probably gave Americans more radiation exposure that year than TMI did.
Hey, my banana is not radioactive!
__________________
Invent the Future
RAFH is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 02:56 PM   #1338388  /  #73
buttershug
Hung
Zaptonia Defense Champion, Summer Sports Match Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Budapest Defenders Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Flash RPG Tower Defense Champion
 
buttershug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,725
buttershug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Hey, my banana is not radioactive!
Then it's not a normal banana.
buttershug is offline   topbottom
Old 03-13-2011, 05:54 PM   #1338461  /  #74
Linus
opportunity of an erection
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,001
Linus
Default

Without getting into the nuclear vs. coal debate, it looks like the damage due to the problems at the nuclear power plants won't compare to the direct damage done by the tsunami.

Health risk from Japan reactor seems quite low: WHO
Linus is offline   topbottom
Old 03-14-2011, 04:31 AM   #1339020  /  #75
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

I keep hearing on CNN about a "hydrogen explosion" at one of those plants. Where does hydrogen come from in this situation?
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Physical Sciences

Tags
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa, alarmist bullshit, analogy flail, bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, ccccccccccccccccccc, dddddddddddddddddddddddd, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, fffffffffffffffffuck, fx is retarded, fx meltsdown, ggggggggggiggity, hhhhhhhhhhhhhha, iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitag, it's like an analogy, jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjust, kill yourself, kkkkkkkkkkkkkk, lololololol, melts down = 2 words, mmmmmmmmmmm, needs more strawman, nnnnnnnnoooooo, pppppplease, quite right, science fail, shut the fuck up fx, stop posting, stop tagging, strawman, tags suck, troupe not troop, tsunanymous, ur tag was out of order, v is a good letter, worst.analogy.ever., x-actly, y ask y, zoot!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org