hardtack

If you like a good yodel, try this Australian effort from 1994 on for size: [media=]

sad news indeed... or as Maynard G would have said, "wow, that's rough Riff!".

I have no idea how these estimations work, but it seems to be a standard practice and does not appear to be because someone has an agenda to push... we will know in 10 years I suppose. But their "guesstimations" are no more ridiculous than your claims of zero deaths so early in the piece. My argument is, and always has been, that nuclear energy is fine as long as the plants are built with appropriate safety measures and correct maintenance procedures... in both cases (Chernobyl and Fukushima - and 5 Mile Island?), it was pretty obvious, things had not been very well thought out or managed.

No, because that is exactly what you were like on Demonology. Saying I'm full of it doesn't really have much of an affect, but I am pointing out that rather than looking at any facts, you prefer to play the man in orderr to deflect from the issue. As I said, look at the results in 10 years time... and in the meantime, try reading a few reported projections from reputable institutes such as Stanford University, to get some insight. Surely you cannot be so stupid as to think the effects of radiation are going to be manifesting themselves in the space of a year. Surely you cannot be so stupid as to believe thatr the thousands who were moved out of the area are going to be repatriated any time soon (if ever). And surely you cannot be so stupid as to believe that the relocation of those thousands of people evacuated as a result of the radiation is not hitting the public purse. Laughable? Yes, I suppose your blinkered view of things would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

If you are trying to provide facts and want to be listened to, don't you think you should also take into account the facts others provide to you?... for example, those figures I provided that came out of Stanford University. If you are dealing in facts, then surely you must realise that the real damage from a nuclear reactor meltdown will not manifest itself immediately (and we are only just over one year in since it occurred), but can take up to 10 years.

Then you obviously didn't read the point I made in more than one of my posts that I am NOT against nuclear power... I just think it needs to be better managed than it has been. And you are still to answer two questions I asked... show me where I said Fukushima was some kind of humanitarian disaster and show me where I stated I was against nuclear energy. The only reason you have avoided answering is that you are unable to do so. Facts are something that you don't deal well in. 19 posts and you have already set yourself up as the same opinionated and abusive poster you were on Demonology.

Excuse me? Please cite the part of any of my texts that states I consider the Fukushima meltdown to be some sort of humanitarian disaster. I have answered your unsupported comments re no sickness as a result of radiation levels with references to give them some credence... you provide nothing but nay saying. If I'm hysterical, I would say that you are illiterate. And I love the way that because I happen to refute your remarks about "not caring" for the people, you turn it around as something ingenuous. Says a lot more about you than it does me.

AoB... you are citing my statement: "Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima)." ...and then raising Bhopal which was a perfect example of what I was saying is the problem I have with Chernobyl and Fukushima??? It was another example of a substandard operation that had numerous safety issues prior to the final disaster...I say it again (and again, and again), please point out any comment of mine that says I am against nuclear energy... why is it that citing reports that document the likely affects of radiation on those living close to such disasters, means that the person raising the issues is anti the whole concept? I understand the benefits of nuclear energy, but I am also happy to point out the negatives when, like any form of energy, is not handled well or the benefits are not weighed up against the very real possibilities. Look at Chernobyl, it has left a tract of land with a 31km radius that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years (if I recall correctly)... It doesn't look like much on paper, but effectively it means that an area the size of most of Melbourne and its suburbs has become a wasteland. Fukushima may well suffer the same fate... it's not just the risks of radiation sickness etc, this also poses the issues and expense involved in relocating entire populations.

Ding, it seems you are the one who is getting hysterical. I am merely pointing out a few facts to support my argument; and how dare you claim that I have no concern for the victims... you are clueless! I would argue that it is you who couldn't care less about the victims as you would appear to consider them to be "collateral damage" who's loss/suffering is acceptable in the name of clean energy. Just to set the record straight, we have donated via various organisations to aid the Pakistani flood relief, New Zealand earthquake victims, Queensland flood relief, and have raised through garage sales, almost $1,000 to go to the Japan Tsunami/Earthquake victims (via the NGO, JEN)... not too bad for someone who doesn't care about the victims I would have thought. It never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself will raise coal mining, or Bhopal, or the Exon Valdez etc, when someone such as myself is responding to claims regarding radiation sickness... why would I be touching on those other disasters when I am responding to you denying the affects of radiation? I am all for clean energy, I am just not for it when due care is not taken in the first place as was the case in both Chernobyl and Japan - but you would have noted that I already stated that quite clearly in another post. As I have previously said, I have not once stated that I am against nuclear energy, but please feel free to point out where I may have made such a statement.

Yes there are exaggerated reports, but do you consider 700 cases of thyroid cancer in children and 10 deaths acceptable? Do you consider the 28 deaths immediately following the Chernobyl disaster as a result of severe radiation, acceptable? Deaths or no deaths, the issue is that if proper precautions are not taken, serious issues can arise. Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima).

You need to explain it because the effects of the radiation and the risk and likelihood of illness are very real in Fukushima and its immediate surrounds. I'm surprised you even asked that question. Yes, there was an initial fear of radiation being blown in the direction of Tokyo by prevailing winds, but this was not a result of fear mongering by "lefties with an agenda", it was a genuine fear borne out of the lack of information being disseminated by TEPCO and the Japanese Govt. simply put, no one knew just how bad the situation was in Fukushima and what sort of levels of radiation were being spilt. My brother-in-law lives in Kawasaki just to the south of Tokyo, and he expressed concern for that very reason. He had a friend from Sendai staying with him who had been displaced by the tsunami. But who also had very real fears about radiation. The potential for serious health problems for those living close to the reactor at the time of the events IS very real...the fact that you can simply dismiss it astounds me.

My type? I challenge you to find anything that I have written that states I am against nuclear energy. This is the problem I have with the likes of you BH, you go off half cocked and make ridiculous assumptions. And it is very apparent that you do not even bother to read what others post, in much depth. If you did, you would be very aware of the fact that although there are currently no reports of major illness, the predictions are that there will be serious illness manifesting itself in years to come (or do you discount Stanford University as having some anti nuclear barrow to push?). As I said, if you think the radiation in Fukushima is not posing any threat, you must think those working on the site of the plant, and those who evacuated the area, must be deluded. You are so up with the facts that you couldn't discern between the effect of radiation on Tokyo and the effect of radiation on Fukushima quite some considerable distance north of Tokyo near Sendai - an area I have spent some time in myself and so I am aware of the geography.

Are you really that stupid BH? Why would anyone be concerned about radiation sickness in Tokyo...or is that the extent of your knowledge of Japan, and you consider all parts of Japan to be in spitting distance of Tokyo? I am talking about Fukushima and its environs. Fukushima is not simply a nuclear reactor...it was a city that had a reasonably sizable population until it was evacuated due to, yes, radiation levels being too dangerous for people to remain. There have been a number of people already taken away from the site because their bodies have absorbed the maximum amount of radiation one should be exposed to in a lifetime. I suppose you consider those workers at the site to be nancy boys because they wear protective clothing? I suggest you accompany Ding to show those bed wetting locals how safe it really is, and how they have been duped into believing it might actually be dangerous to their health to remain in their homes.

Then perhaps you should go over and spend some time in Fukushima to set all of our minds at ease that the levels are not dangerous (seems all of those bed wetting locals don't want to resettle anytime soon - perhaps you could allay their fears?). From the Wiki page dedicated to the Fukushima disaster:

Do you really think that the effects of exposure to radiation are instantaneous? The real impact will be seen in years to come and in generations to come. Maybe you also believe that the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a direct result of the bomb and not of the subsequent radiation and that the birth deformities and illness were merely a coincidence? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4185707/Hell-on-Earth.html

I was called up in 1972...on my birthday no less! I was deferred because I was studying at Swinburne and then Gough got voted in later that year and National Service got voted out; can't say I was disappointed.

Yeah, in the Martin & Connor thread, Nasher said something along the lines of "We should definitely draft Connor".

TT3D - Closer to the Edge - mentioned this in my last post. Brilliant documentary on the Isle of Man TT Motorcycle racing. Genghis Blues from IMDB: "The extraordinary odyssey of a U.S. musician of Cape Verdean ancestry to Tannu Tuva, in central Asia, where nomadic people throat sing more than one note simultaneously, using vocal harmonics. A bluesman, Paul Pena, blind and recently widowed, taught himself throat singing and was by chance invited to the 1995 throat-singing symposium in Kyzyl. Helped by the "Friends of Tuva," Pena makes the arduous journey. Singing in the deep, rumbling kargyraa style, Pena gives inspired performances at the festival, composes songs in Tuvan, washes his face in sacred rivers, expresses the disorientation of blindness in foreign surroundings, and makes a human connection with everyone he meets." Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus from IMDB: "Director Andrew Douglas's film follows "Alt Country" singer Jim White through a gritty terrain of churches, prisons, truck stops, biker bars and coal mines. This journey takes you through a very real contemporary Southern America, a world of marginalised white people and their unique and home-made culture. Along the way are roadside encounters with present-day musical mavericks including The Handsome Family, Johnny Dowd, 16 Horsepower and David Johansen; oldtime banjo player Lee sexton; rockabilly and mountain Gospel churches - and novelist Harry Crews telling grisly stories down a dirt track."

My favourite French film is Diva... cannot recommend this one highly enough. Others are Wages of Fear, City of Lost Children, Delicatessen, Mic Macs and Amelie. We recently bought a 3D TV and to test it out, I watched "3D TT - Closer to the Edge"... this is an amazing documentary on the Isle of Man TT motorcycle race. Jaw droppingly good!!

I like those Dan Sultan songs, but for mine, the best voice in Oz goes to this guy...

I was in a band here in Sydney a few years ago, and we used to do a cover of Linda Linda... confused the hell out of pub patrons. Linda Linda and Train Train are two of my all time favourite karaoke songs. (and I did mention the Linda! Linda! Linda! movie in that post of mine you replied to - I have it on DVD at home).

In case none of you noticed, there was a game going on and Neeld would have had more on his plate to be concerned with than worrying about whether or not Morton stopped, looked him in the eye, and took it like a "man". He gave Morton the serve he deserved, Morton heard it, took note of it, felt the sting of it, and then they both moved on. This bit is not directed at you Longsuffering, but there are far too many vindictive, nasty, so called "supporters" in these threads... how about casting the blame at the coaches/selectors as Morton et al are doing their best (which is NOT as bad as many here seem to think) under a LOT of pressure; they do not pick themselves. These players are out there doing it as best they can and yet some here (who have probably done nothing much at all in a footballing sense) consider they are not respecting the jumper or the club???

I get the feeling Neeld probably just told him to "just get out of my sight!"... and he obliged post haste.

Not to mention nthmond

I like Huddo... but I can't quite shake the feeling that I'm listening to a work experience kid when he's on (which I find quite refreshing - he always seems in awe of those around him) :-)