Print

[_iffy]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 06:50 PM)

Is that present day Nagasaki............

dude your going to have to explain those pictures or delete them.

[jha'dhur]

They are pictures from present day Nagaski.

[throwingks]

What's your point? They are still dealing with repercussions. Nuclear bombs are bad.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 3 2006, 06:05 PM)

What's your point? They are still dealing with repercussions. Nuclear bombs are bad.

It seems somewhat misleading to post a 60 year old B&W image and insinuate that it is in anyway shape or form resemblance of Nagasaki/Hiroshima/Japan in 2006. Less than the 100 years you claim.

People still inhabit Chernobyl, which gave off way more particulate contamination than Atom Bomb.

I have been to Nevada test site where bombs were tested in the last 30-40 years.

I agree with your post, all but the BS.

[_iffy]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 07:18 PM)

I have been to Nevada test site where bombs were tested in the last 30-40 years.

Finally an explanation!!

BTW thanks for explaning your pics.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 3 2006, 06:30 PM)

Finally an explanation!!

BTW thanks for explaning your pics.

Are you ever going to claim your $100.00.

Money Talks, Bullshit runs the marathon......

[_iffy]

^ i never claimed you could turn lead into gold.
What i said was you could add individual electrons, protons, until you end up with gold.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 04:18 PM)

It seems somewhat misleading to post a 60 year old B&W image and insinuate that it is in anyway shape or form resemblance of Nagasaki/Hiroshima/Japan in 2006. Less than the 100 years you claim.

People still inhabit Chernobyl, which gave off way more particulate contamination than Atom Bomb.

I have been to Nevada test site where bombs were tested in the last 30-40 years.

I agree with your post, all but the BS.

Semantics, first you complain about people using them, then that is all you can rely on. You are now looking to argue with anyone and everyone, using anything you can as a crutch.

People in Hiroshima still get cancer. That isnt speculation, I gave a link. So maybe it isnt unlivable but it is less-livable like I said. Show me my B.S.

Why do you resort to making fun of people? Do you feel your posts aren't strong enough without it?

I will say you made people visit and post more than normal here lately. Even if you should be banned.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 3 2006, 07:06 PM)

Semantics, first you complain about people using them, then that is all you can rely on. You are now looking to argue with anyone and everyone, using anything you can as a crutch.

People in Hiroshima still get cancer. That isnt speculation, I gave a link. So maybe it isnt unlivable but it is less-livable like I said. Show me my B.S.

Why do you resort to making fun of people? Do you feel your posts aren't strong enough without it?

I will say you made people visit and post more than normal here lately. Even if you should be banned.

LITTLE BOY I CANT BE BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe this BS easyboard is some egnimatic mystery to you but it isnt to me.

[throwingks]

Okay, your holiness. Are you upset that maybe, a dumb jock, is more intelligent than you? What is the mystery to me? Cause I guess there is one, I never knew to look for it.

Say hello to xmedia and bluedeath for me. Both of whom I kinda miss

I suggest you re-read this.
http://pictures.xbox...rules/Rules.htm
You did read it once, right?

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 3 2006, 07:53 PM)

Okay, your holiness. Are you upset that maybe, a dumb jock, is more intelligent than you? What is the mystery to me? Cause I guess there is one, I never knew to look for it.

Say hello to xmedia and bluedeath for me. Both of whom I kinda miss

I suggest you re-read this.
http://pictures.xbox...rules/Rules.htm
You did read it once, right?

Dont hold your breath.  

[_iffy]

You've flamed a head moderator(vader) and many others

FYI - one of the rules is excessive flaming. So far you've had three people tell you to stop.

You should be aware that x-s doesn't need a reason to ban you.
Now your relativly new here so you should know that.

Don't get me wrong here, flame wars can be fun, but you have to know when to stop.
Now is one of those times.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 07:55 PM)

Guys...if you havent figured it out yet....

Xmedia-->IrishBastard-->jha'dhur
bluemedia is someone else...or there is something really really wrong with Xmedia

Couple of hints.....
incredibly insulting...when it isnt necessary
goes completely off topic for no reason
obsesses over rather odd topics
strictly anti-catholic protestant who is anti-government(well the current govt...)
poor math skills--->which i will explain later

Apparently though...Xmedia finally got a lesson on how gravity worked....and that might explain his new arrogance....

Now...I could be very wrong....but it all makes sense when you think about it

On the topic:
jha'dhur is correct...
Atomic sites are inhabitable....Nagasaki, Hiroshima, test sites in Nevada
sites of nuclear disasters are also inhabitable....such as Chernobyl.

However, take the example of the Bikini atoll.  It was the site of nuclear bomb testing in the pacific.
The people of the bikini atoll were moved in 1946....in 1975 the people tried to return...but there were still significant radiation fears...currently the island is inhabitable...

Just remember that except for Chernobyl...you are discussing atomic bombs...not nuclear bombs....
Chernobyl wasnt a bomb....and shouldnt be compared to one....

We only have one area that was devastated by nuclear weapons....and they are still having problems 50 years later.

That would make me right not jha'dhur,  unless I misunderstand something. His stance is all is well in those sites. I provided a link that says otherwise, a few posts up.

I exaggerated the amount of years, for effect, however, they are less habitable, then areas not of radiation.

http://www.bikiniatoll.com/

QUOTE

    "It is safe to walk on all of the islands...The Advisory Group reaffirmed: although the residual radioactivity on islands in Bikini Atoll is still higher than on other atolls in the Marshall islands, it is not hazardous to health at the levels measured. Indeed, there are many places in the world where people have been living for generations with higher levels of radioactivity from natural sources - such as the geological surroundings and the sun - than there is now on Bikini Atoll...By all internationally agreed scientific and medical criteria...the air, the land surface, the lagoon water and the drinking water are all safe. There is no radiological risk in visiting the lagoon or the islands. The nuclear weapon tests have left practically no cesium in marine life. The cesium deposited in the lagoon was dispersed in the ocean long ago.

    "The main radiation risk would be from the food: eating locally grown produce, such as fruit, could add significant radioactivity to the body...Eating coconuts or breadfruit from Bikini Island occasionally would be no cause for concern. But eating many over a long period of time without having taken remedial measures might result in radiation doses higher than internationally agreed safety levels."

[puckSR]

nah....he is still right....
they are habitable....
and while you may have some arguments about the safety of those areas when compared to others...the experts have determined them to be safe....

[lordvader129]

yeah, unfortunately jha'dur is right about nuclear sites being inhabitable (if not pleasant), throwingks, you described them as being "unlivable"


however, i would like to point out that the first picture of "nagasaki" that jha'dur posted is actually Nagasaki Day, an anti-war protest in melbourne australia (the english banner is a dead giveaway) funny since jha'dur criticised me for using google, at least i check the context of what i post

http://www.melbourne...03/08/52034.php