No.

I think what you said is true.

Also, as I understand it, the long-lived isotopes tend to emit alpha particles. Alpha particles are easily stopped- they don't penetrate most materials, including water. So most of the radiation is expended by the particles hitting the water.

On the other hand, if the fish eat plutonium particles and a human eats the fish, that's not good. On the other hand, taking a walk on sunny day exposes you to more radiation than a power plant ever will, excepting a worst-case scenario.

Hey, it's an APK sockpuppet, which doesn't really count as a sockpuppet, because everything APK posts is AC. Stop trying to pretend you have supporters here, by posting without your APK sig.

Maybe if you weren't such an abusive asshole, you wouldn't get karmaslammed into oblivion, and you'd actually be able to use a real account, instead of your AC crap.

It doesn't matter if what you say is true or not (and I'm not saying it is completely, even though you do have some legit points at times), but when you present your points like a maniacal raving psychotic, it doesn't matter. You're branded an asshole from the beginning, and rightly so.

I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

A 16' mast? That's tiny for my area. My parents have a two story house, plus attic, so the building's got to be at least 27 feet high, maybe over 30. The antenna is a good 10 feet higher than the highest part of the roof, so it's got to be 40 feet high.

My brother has a ranch, with attic, and his isn't as tall, but it's still got to be 20 feet, and it's the shortest antenna I've seen anywhere.

I don't have an antenna, because I'm in town, and use satellite.

Being Canadian, you'd apologize for the intrusion and occupation of their time, and ask them the name by which they prefer to be addressed, then apologize for not having known it beforehand, then apologize for having so many apologies.

That is an interesting case of you trying to support two countering arguments in one JE, there. Your JE claimed that he was a do-nothing, and now you quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ, poised to launch his new world order at any coming moment.

I would love for you to explain how those two views are not diametrically opposed, but being as you haven't been bothered by them so far in the least I don't expect that you ever will be in the future. When January 2017 draws to a close with a new POTUS and none of the new world order having come to pass I am sure I will find your newest conspiracy theories regarding President Lawnchair to be just as fantastic.

Are you referring to Thou shalt not covet? To say that doesn't fit here is an understatement. Too bad Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies isn't one, as you could learn a lot from it.

I am not going to read it for you. If you want the Cliff's notes, this is the closest to them I have found. Clearly I cannot motivate you to pursue knowledge, but perhaps they can.

For what it's worth, I *have* heard the term used that way. In fact it's the only usage I've ever heard. I had vaguely known there was some other historical use, but like cretin , imbecile and moron, it's become a common derogatory word.

I suspect that it is a regional thing. English speaking nations all have their unique slang terms after all. And many English speaking countries are also large enough to have regional differences within them. I'm not likely to ever call a person a drongo, wombat, poof (Australian), berk, bint, chav or pikey (British) or wigger, jagoff, ratchet or ho (American)

Despite being Canadian, I'd never call someone "b'y" (Newfoundland), skookum or siwash (British Columbia)

You are utterly wrong on that. You are free to read something and disagree with it. You are even free to disagree with what you don't read. However when you refuse to read something, and then parade about pretending to be an expert on it, it is very likely that you will make yourself look foolish (which you have done repeatedly on this case in particular).

There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with Marx. What is absurd is you continuing to claim to be knowledgeable on Communism while refusing to read the fundamental text on it. It would be like someone claiming to be knowledgeable on Jesus because they read about him on uncyclopedia.

... and no investments were made. Business had its chance to shit or get off the pot. And we didn't get shit. So now it looks like municipal investment or nothing.

If the GOP is intent on stopping that, then I guess we should say that the GOP is a barrier to future infrastructure investment. And the solution is to prevent a Republican led anything.

The code groupies you hear about.

Not true. :(

He was probably referring to the elemental weight, not the weight used.

And your medical degree is _where_ again?? It is always amazing how someone is an armchair expert on someone they have never even met but I guess it is easier to look like a fool then to learn the facts.

these "safety bunkers" are called "lobbies" by normal people. you know, how gas stations have air-conditioned stores inside where you can buy coffee and soda? you can still afford gas, can't you?