Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nuclear Power Is Extremely Safe -- That's the Truth About What We Learned From Japan
FoxNews ^ | July 23, 2011 | Alex Epstein

Posted on 07/23/2011 9:59:36 PM PDT by hamboy

In the midst of a still struggling and fragile global economy, Germany has announced that it will shut down seven nuclear plants by the end of the year--which means that Germans will be left to run their factories, heat their homes, and power their economy with 10% less electrical generating capacity. Nine more plants will be shut down over the next decade and tens of billions of dollars in investment will be lost.

The grounds for this move, and similar proposals in Switzerland, Italy, and other countries, is safety. As the Swiss energy minister put it, “Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high.”

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; History; Politics; Science
KEYWORDS: atomic; fukishima; fukushima; nuclear; radiation

1 posted on 07/23/2011 9:59:43 PM PDT by hamboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hamboy
Yes, but the greenies won't listen and the MSM will continue to hype how dangerous nukes are and continue to brainwash the already brain dead masses.

Enviros, at least the leaders, do not want cheap power, they want people living back in the dark ages, except for themselves of course, and they will find fault with any form of energy that is cheap and safe and delivers the goods. He**, they even find fault with their wind and solar crap(and rightly so), for the wrong reasons but still they bitch about them.

Communist simply do not want us to be well off, they can't control people who are self sufficient and earn enough wealth to live comfortably.

2 posted on 07/23/2011 10:36:48 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

bflr


3 posted on 07/23/2011 10:37:41 PM PDT by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

While it maybe low today what will the total number of radiation-caused deaths be in ten years that can be associated with the event. It may still be low or not.

One must look at more than just today to make accurate statements about the death toll.

By the by does anyone know what the death toll for the tsunami is?


4 posted on 07/23/2011 10:41:07 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hamboy
In just the three years leading up to Three Mile Island, Beckmann observed, “dam disasters have killed thousands of people (at least 2,000 in India in August 1979)

That's nothing. About 170,000 people died to the Banqiao dam failure in China in 1975.

5 posted on 07/23/2011 10:46:23 PM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
does anyone know what the death toll for the tsunami is?

You mean there was a tsunami? I thought it was just a nuclear meltdown that happened in Japan.

(/sarc caused by media hype of Fukushima)

6 posted on 07/23/2011 10:50:56 PM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

The problem with nuclear power is not the concept.... it’s the fact that we seem to be stuck on materials that are better suited to weapons than energy. Thorium reactors would be the better choice for safety and they are just as effective.


7 posted on 07/23/2011 10:57:47 PM PDT by volunbeer (Keep the dope, we'll make the change in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

At least four people have died at Fukushima. Granted, they didn’t die from radiation poisoning, but they did die.


8 posted on 07/23/2011 11:00:02 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
At least four people have died at Fukushima. Granted, they didn’t die from radiation poisoning, but they did die.

Since the article deals with deaths caused by the radistion leak and not the tsunami or other causes, your statement is completely irrelevant.

9 posted on 07/23/2011 11:12:08 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hamboy
Hard to say really, the Japanese have been lying through their teeth from the beginning.

Reminds me of the way the old Soviet tied to hide that little 'accident' outside of Kiev. Except in the Internet age, some stuff gets out no matter haw hard TEP or their Govt enablers try to hide facts.

BTW, Japanese tea is now off my diet unless from Thailand...

10 posted on 07/23/2011 11:29:47 PM PDT by ASOC (What are you doing now that Mexico has become OUR Chechnya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

Excellent article. I was a Beckmann “fan” way back, and his book (The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear) is a classic.

Just a couple of months ago, I learned about the amazing potential of Thorium-based nuclear power. Imagine a source of nuclear power that

— produces less than 1% of the waste of current nuclear plants

— cannot melt down

— cannot contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation

— is simpler and safer because it operates at low pressure, hence does not need a massive pressure vessel

— can actually “burn up” existing nuclear waste.

Sound too good to be true? Check out

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/portal.html


11 posted on 07/23/2011 11:33:44 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

Reactors damaged by a 1,000 year event and 0 loss of life.


12 posted on 07/23/2011 11:47:02 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Pelosi: Obamacare indulgences for sale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hamboy
In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

The fact that there wasn't a catastrophic meltdown that poisoned the surrounding area for decades speaks to the relative safety of the plants. Even in the face of the worst earthquake and tsunami in recent Japanese history, and even with all three of the back-up safety plans going awry, those plants still haven't ruined the country.

13 posted on 07/23/2011 11:57:59 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: volunbeer
Thorium reactors would be the better choice for safety and they are just as effective.

Maybe the bright side to this will be more research in different methods of nuclear energy.

14 posted on 07/23/2011 11:59:41 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RussP

Is this the LFTR design? Our son has been reading a lot about it, and is fascinated with the technology.


15 posted on 07/24/2011 12:01:51 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Nothing in the article says that radiation was the only issue. They just say the death toll was zero. That is not true.

“ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.”


16 posted on 07/24/2011 12:10:25 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam


17 posted on 07/24/2011 1:49:40 AM PDT by packrat35 (America is rapidly becoming a police state that East Germany could be proud of!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

The only reasons that nuclear power exists is because of military needs and because of government mandates (only governments can afford the costs involved). Other than that it is far too expensive to operate a nuclear plant even when insurance companies cap the payouts on losses and governments foot the bill for cleanup from disasters. If politicians weren’t paid off (via lobbyists), there wouldn’t be any nuke plants except on military installations. Even wall street investors know better than to throw money into a black hole...Germany understands now thanks to Fukushima, better late than never.

Pro nuke people need better talking points for brainwashing in light of recent events.


18 posted on 07/24/2011 2:17:19 AM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42
Even wall street investors know better than to throw money into a black hole...Germany understands now thanks to Fukushima, better late than never.

Haven't heard those old lines for almost twenty years. The original claim by the thread's sponsor is, of course, perfectly true. The only reason the Germans are proposing to turn back nuclear power for electrical generation is to cater to The Greens; Germany knows it can buy it from France, which generates over 90% of its electricity from nuclear, and has the cleanest air in Europe.

What is remarkable is the effectiveness of a thoroughly controlled media in presumably keeping the public ignorant ("presumably" becuase with the state of the press today one should presume that any assertion has a political objective). Not only has no one ever been hurt by the radioactive attributes of nuclear power used in a commercial reactor, even Chernobyl, built as a weapons grade plutonium generator around a graphite core with absolutely no containment was a benefit to the health of the Ukrainians who lived nearby. It's coal replacement has caused many more deaths, about 200/year, than the two killed and 16 to 20 who contracted leukemia over the next two years from the Chernobyl meltdown.

Remember, thousands have fallen off of roofs installing or repairing solar installations, and hundreds from accidents with wind turbines, and thousands when dams have collapsed, but no one - ever - has died or been sickened from commercial nuclear power. That is simply because the fuel has such a high energy density, and we know its characteristics so well, that it has been proved possible to isolate both the public and operators from the core.

Of course the Chinese, have no intention of slowing their planned construction of 132 nuclear electric plants over the next twenty years, and have begun with four plants since their announcement of the program in 2007, all four of which will be at full power this year, about a fourth the time it used to take the US to bring a plant from licensing to power testing.

One of the more remarkable bits of data about exposure to much more radiation than Fukushima workers were exposed to came from the accidental introduction of Cobalt 60 into steel used to build apartments in Taiwan about twenty years ago. About ten thousand residents were exposed to an average of 40 mSvt/year from the Cobalt, which compares to the natural background of about 3 mSvrts/year.

After analysis by health physicists all over the world the effect upon the residents of the complex was a remarkable, 20 to 30 to 1 reduction in different kinds of cancer when compared to various control groups. Similar health data were assumed an anomaly when residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, followed closely for decades, and exposed to much higher background doses by short half life isotopes for several decades also showed lower than average cancer incidence than residents industrial cities in Japan.

Like most science, the reason behind apparent health benefits of higher exposure to radiation are not claimed to be understood, and so at odds with our federally funded science programs that studies have been few and far between. Still, the data are unequivocal. Taiwan was very embarrassed to have permitted so many of its citizens to be exposed, and law suits were anticipated. Instead, the most beneficial exposure appears to be in the 100 mSv/year range. But few are likely to receive the health benefits of radiation exposure given our voracious environmental law industry and the impact upon job opportunities for health physicists who benefit from the fear of radiation most people have.

Unfortunately, radiation emitted from coal plants, while higher than emmisions from nuclear plants, are not sufficient to serve as a cancer inhibitor, or to mitigate the health effects of the other waste products of coal burning. Coal puts a variety of other contaminints known to cause repiratory illness, and generates enormous ammounts of ash and slag which must be disposed of.

It is sad, but inevitable, to see our tax dollars being spent on marketing for solar electric technology which could not survive without subsides stolen from our private sector. Our presidential science adviser John Holdren and his mentors, Paul Ehrlich, E.F.Shumacher,and Harrison Brown, have, for decades, made lots of money, received many awards, and much acclaim by proclaiming that we cannot sustain our present population and need to reduce it by about two thirds. Holdren and Obama may suceed in reducing our population while China and India grow, assume manufacturing and economic leadership, and our society follows England and Cuba into irrelevancy. The recession will only enhance the damage to our economy from the lies about “renewable” energy, while increasing our dependence upon countries who produce alternives to nuclear, which we must purchase in spite of the abundance within our own borders, to keep a few of our industries alive and cars on the road. The statists not only don't care how many they hurt with their deception, that is their goal, the necessary path to a socialist Utopia.

Nuclear power is a target precisely because it has been proved, over 60 years of use, to be the cleanest and safest source of energy, as well as, without the burden of the environmental bar, the lest expensive source of electricity when including the cost of the full fuel cycle. Coal is cheaper today, but every 1000 Megawatt electric coal powered plant generates about 100 freight cars full of slag and ash which must be disposed of each day. Nuclear waste is recyclable, and only waste if we don't reprocess. And the scare tactics are complete nonsense. We are learning the controlled exposure to background radiation may be beneficial, and need to study the issue for its potential to extend the lives and minimize the suffering of billions who suffer from cancer.

19 posted on 07/24/2011 4:29:58 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

“If politicians weren’t paid off (via lobbyists), there wouldn’t be any nuke plants except on military installations”

Yes, because of irrational people like you.

Nuclear energy is cheap & clean. The only reason 40 year old plants with outdated designs are still being used is because of you dark earthers.


20 posted on 07/24/2011 4:51:27 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

“It’s coal replacement has caused many more deaths, about 200/year, than the two killed and 16 to 20 who contracted leukemia over the next two years from the Chernobyl meltdown”

I support nuclear power but it is patently false that the meltdown and ensuing events only killed two people. Even the Soviets don’t use that number.


21 posted on 07/24/2011 4:55:36 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Nuclear is artificially expensive due to the amount of people it takes to operate and guard a plant. It’s estimated that to get a permit to build a new one will be close to $100 million and to actually build one will be close to $20 billion.

In contrast, a coal plant is around $1 billion. There are companies that are developing portable nuclear generation capable of powering 20,000 homes for 10 years.


22 posted on 07/24/2011 6:00:45 AM PDT by Mean Daddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mean Daddy

I call them the dark earthers because they aren’t happy with any source of power or use. They want us back in the caves.


23 posted on 07/24/2011 6:44:34 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Storage of nuclear waste is always overlooked by pro nuke people, it’s like it never happens or is needed. In the long run nukes are not worth it but you can let future generations worry about that as background radiation levels continue to increase. (selfish)

Fukushima was a wake up call, you just hit the snooze button to rollover, going back to sleep, to dream about your wonderful lifestyle.


24 posted on 07/24/2011 10:37:26 AM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Yes, it’s the LFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor) design. And it is potentially revolutionary. We could have this thing producing commercial energy within a decade or so. And with the abundance of cheap, clean energy, we could start producing methanol or hydrogen from coal and/or natural gas. That could be used in cars to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Think about it.


25 posted on 07/24/2011 11:10:59 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Oh, I think it's an awesome idea. I would love for us to be able to tell the Saudis and all the other Middle Eastern suppliers that they can eat their oil; we don't need it.

Our son is the one who told us about LFTR. He's majoring in Computer Sci. right now, but we suggested to him that he think about Nuclear Science. He believes, and probably rightly so, that university studies and research are still stuck in the big reactor rut, and not putting any funds into research into other technologies, like LFTR.

He's also waiting to find out more about Rossi's eCat. He wants to see some genuine impartial research done on it.

26 posted on 07/24/2011 11:16:44 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

200 deaths per year due to coal-fired power? Way off. It’s more like 10,000 - 50,000 in the US alone.


27 posted on 07/24/2011 11:57:20 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

Exactly. We need more nukes, not less. Safest form of mass production of energy (by man) in history.


28 posted on 07/24/2011 12:00:51 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

In ten years, we’ll know.

Meantime, we need to build nuclear generation facilities. We’re not waiting ten years, then another ten years, then another ten years, etc. That’s what the envirocommienazis have done to the U.S. for the past 40 years, and we are the worse for it.


29 posted on 07/24/2011 12:03:25 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

I agree. You should not receive any benefits from nuclear. You should get all your own energy from a bicycle-powered generator.


30 posted on 07/24/2011 12:06:32 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

Contrary to the anti-nuclear propaganda, waste disposal is actually a major *ADVANTAGE* of nuclear power. See

http://RussP.us/nucpower.htm

Why? Because there is about a million times less of it than there is from any other large-scale source of energy. And that includes solar, by the way. The notion that solar is clean is a myth. The quantity of materials needed for it are huge, and some of those materials are toxic.


31 posted on 07/24/2011 1:18:47 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

If this Thorium thing is half as good as it looks to me, I’d say nuclear science and engineering could soon see a renaisance.


32 posted on 07/24/2011 1:44:17 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Driftdriver, you are correct. My writing has always needed more editing than I usually give it. Those leukemia casualties are assumed to have died, although I do not recall the exact morbidity. Not at all expert on leukemia, I know that survival rates for some varieties have increased, but leukemia is bad regardless. The two deaths were immediate, within about 60 hours, from very high radiation levels. One and perhaps both deaths were to control room personnel. I have worked at University Lab reactors with better protection, and thoe were tiny kilowatt-sized research reactors.

There have been all sorts numbers reported, including a claim of 60 leukemia cases, all but three of whom recovered completely. Those recovery percentages don't correlate with radiation induced leukemia, and, the incidence of leukemia was actually below the average for similar population areas in Ukraine.

I also failed to mention the name of the phenomenon wherein radiation exposure enormously reduces cancer, where one data set came from 10,000 residents of apartments built with Cobalt 60. It is called hormesis, and should be thoroughly explored for everyone’s sake, but won't be because of our antinuclear Luddites and anti-capitalist traitors.

33 posted on 07/24/2011 3:16:10 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RussP
200 deaths per year due to coal-fired power? Way off. It’s more like 10,000 - 50,000 in the US alone.

RussP, it has been decades since I read that estimate published by our EPA. To what are the additional deaths attributed? I'm being lazy, and have not scoured the EPA site for many years.

It is hard not to become entangled with minutia when the important fact, no radiation affects, are so dominant, and the total absence of emissions is so critical to human health, as the Bejing Olympics so dramatically showed the world. Long distance athletes knew, but most didn't connect the air pollution with coal burning. China's rulers know, most of them having come from the scientific community, and are doing what our captive mandarins are not, protecting the future, the health, both economic and physical, of their citizens.

34 posted on 07/24/2011 3:41:27 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

There were many deaths from radiation exposure. Troops hauled in to fight the fires, firefighters, heck one helicopter lifting sand in hit a crane and went down in the reactor area.

The reactor personnel were largely protected because of where they worked. The townspeople were exposed to extremely high radiation levels for several days before they were even told of the accident.

In reality there is no way to know the death toll because the radiation covered such a large geographic area. Some deaths probably haven’t happened yet and wont until the cancer develops and kills the person.

Downplaying Chernobyl of all events is hardly the way to dispel fears of the reality. Chernobyl is a great example of poorly designed, maintained, trained, and managed reactors aren’t a good idea.


35 posted on 07/24/2011 3:43:52 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

The most dangerous byproducts from nuclear energy are completely man made and don’t exist in nature and are dangerous for tens of hundreds of years of course it is not your problem because you won’t live long enough to see the end result of your instant pleasures.

As soon as you can control earthquakes, floods and wars, let me know.


36 posted on 07/24/2011 3:48:14 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RussP

the 200 deaths isn’t my number


37 posted on 07/24/2011 3:56:35 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

so you’re irrational about things other than nuclear power as well.


38 posted on 07/24/2011 3:58:09 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

When someone starts talking about nuclear waste being dangerous “for thousands of years,” you can be pretty sure they are clueless. Chemical waste from coal burning is dangerous FOREVER, of course. And that includes mercury, asbestos, and many other dangerous chemicals — in far, far larger quantities than any nuclear waste.

Here’s an interesting little factoid. If we go completely nuclear for the next 10,000 years, the amount of land that would be needed for waste disposal is roughly the same as what will be needed for the next TWO WEEKS worth of coal-ash disposal.

And with Thorium based nuclear power (see my earlier post on this thread), the nuclear waste is reduced yet another factor of 100.


39 posted on 07/24/2011 4:23:04 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: hamboy
Q - How many people died at Three Mile Island?

A - One less than died in Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile.

40 posted on 07/24/2011 4:26:45 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Would you rather live in Obamaville or Palintown?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Ask the Japanese why they have a no go zone and ask Russia, after 25 years, why there is still a Chernobyl no go zone plus ask why another sarcophagus is being built for containment and who is paying for it. Chernobyl\'s sarcophagus falling apart Wake up sleepyheads. Chernobyl New Safe Confinement / Sarcophagus
41 posted on 07/24/2011 6:42:34 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

Well ya can’t fix stupid


42 posted on 07/24/2011 6:57:06 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Yeah, salt is just a great thing for plumbing, must be why there is a rush to build these new reactors...not. Don't have to read, just browse the headlines for what happens when things go wrong and there is no answers so there is no preparation for a fix. It's all jury-rig. Sunday, July 24, 2011
43 posted on 07/24/2011 7:00:32 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

You raise an interesting point about the effect of salt on plumbing. Obviously they need to use the right kind of materials for the plumbing. The Thorium LFTR concept was proven back in the 60s and 70s, so clearly they must have solved that basic engineering problem.


44 posted on 07/24/2011 7:43:28 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RussP
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm Notice it is written in 2009. ===== Molten salt reactor Read about drawbacks towards the end. The fluid is so frigg'in caustic that it's not funny.
45 posted on 07/24/2011 8:49:05 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

Oh, I am big supporter of Nuclear energy and my initial comment was totally correct.

It is surprising that the Luddites have not raised a big stink about nukes after this event.


46 posted on 07/24/2011 9:05:11 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

Fast forward two years to see how utterly preposterous this article is. Fukushima is a nuke mess getting bigger still.


47 posted on 09/02/2013 6:49:56 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59

With the news this week from Fukushima it is time for you to correct your position. Two years later you could not have been proven more wrong.


48 posted on 09/02/2013 6:53:40 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson