3 ms·
> I consider this a positive vote. So you massively interpret (and misinterpret) what I write and then, purely on the basis of your interpretation, accuse my o
by mpweiher 3y ago
> I consider this a positive vote.
So you massively interpret (and misinterpret) what I write and then, purely on the basis of your interpretation, accuse my of lying. Precious.
You might want to look up what a "lie" is.
> And when I was speaking about cooling problems, it was specifically about the French reactors.
And when I responded, I was specific about this not being a problem with nuclear reactors in general because we know how to build cooling towers.
And yet you accuse me of lying.
> With respect to the fish: basic biology. [...]
OK, so you have nothing but generalities and platitudes, thanks for confirming.
- _ph_ 3y agoOk, when you are calling science "generalities and platitudes", you are making my point of your posts reading like right wing propaganda and also any more discussion is moot.
- mpweiher 3y agoWhat you posted were generalities and platitudes. Yes, when water gets too hot, fish die. You need to be bit more specific than that. For example when the water we use to boil a fish (I prefer fried) is at a good 100ºC, that kills fish. I have some doubts that the nuclear power plants raised the temperatures of the rivers to 100ºC. To be relevant, you would have to have some precise figure as to what the official limits are, what the temperatures when fish (which types of fish?) actually start getting affected and how much, what temperatures the plants emit and how much those temperatures raise the temperature of the river. And of course, all you actually have is more slander and denouncements. As usual.