Evan Burton

You can't admit you might be wrong, can you? How do explain this then... a similar event but unrelated to Fukushima? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/21/large-fish-disappeared-from-australia-coast Why isn't it possible that both events stem from the same cause?

Wow Steven; I've seen acts of desperation before but you certainly rate among the most significant. Is it so hard for you to admit that it might be something other than radiation? Hell, for all we know it may have been pollution dumped in the region by some multinational conglomerate which has so far evaded detection. That is certainly within the realms of possibility but again there is nothing to support that. Why is it so hard for you to admit you might be wrong? We're all wrong about things in our lives. I might be wrong about this; it might end up being directly caused by Fukushima... it just needs evidence to show that. But you.. you seem to fear being incorrect, have to abandon all sense of logic and try to support an indefensible position. Can you not simply admit that whilst you BELIEVE it is being caused by the Fukushima disaster, it may in fact be completely unrelated to it? Is that so abhorrent to you?

Steven, Is English your first language? If it is not then that might explain why you have so much trouble comprehending my statements. Now, read carefully: ",,, and MAY have a completely NATURAL cause." MAY = Used to express possibility. In other words something that might be but also might not be. NATURAL = Of or pertaining to nature or the universe, happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc. So again, Steven, I did not say it was a seasonal event. There is no evidence for us to be certain it was anything other than a natural event. That might include seawater changes caused by undersea vents, that might include any one of hundreds of explanations. In time those investigating this occurrence may be able to tell us with certainty what caused this; conversely the explanation may never be known. Lastly, even if it is PDO, you are still wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seasonal?s=t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation 20-30 years is NOT 'seasonal', Steven. If ever I can assist you with the correct definitions of English words or how they are used, I am only too happy to assist.

I am constantly amazed how you twist everything to fit your dogmatic views, and how you distort what has been said. Nowhere did I say it was a seasonal event. What I said was we don't know what caused it and there are many explanations for it; we cannot assume it is Fukushima because there is nothing to actually support that. Could it be Fukushima? Yes, it could be - but there is nothing to support that conclusion over other explanations. Steven, what it goes to show is that you are guilty of the very same faults you incorrectly assign to me. I am saying we don't know what is the cause, that we need to be open-minded and evaluate each possible explanation on its merits. You, conversely, simply posit that your claims are correct... despite no evidence to support that.

I don't know why you continue to insist upon shooting yourself in the foot. From the Bloomberg link: "The utility, which serves 29 million customers in the Tokyo metropolitan area, is collecting soil where the leak occurred and doesn’t believe any water reached the ocean, company executives said at a briefing in Tokyo. About 100 metric tons (26,400 gallons) of water may have escaped a concrete barrier, the company said." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-20/tepco-says-new-leak-of-radioactive-water-found-at-fukushima-site.html It just goes to show: - Still nothing conclusive to say the sardine event was caused by the Fukushima reactor; - The company are not hiding that there are still significant issues to be addressed; and - We still need to be vigilant and monitor in case anything like this does become a concern.

You're your own worst enemy, Steven, when you decide that you don't need any assistance to understand complex technical issues. To others I would recommend that unless they are trained in these areas, seek expert advice in comprehending exactly what data is saying (and a good start is to read the conclusion). And you are damned by your own post, which simply reinforces what I have previously said:

*sigh* More walls of text. Anyway, you mentioned ENENews again and had a link... but the heading can be misleading if you don't read the article. Let's see what he said: - "There is no evidence of Fukushima fallout here in California and local fish are safe to eat but I won't be surprised to see small amounts of Fukushima fallout in the Pacific in the future...". Doesn't that say it all? No evidence. And in future? "Small amounts" and he wants to see increased monitoring; that's a good call. And other websites, this one Al Jazeera: "It is unlikely that [the effects to the starfish population] could be from Fukushima but we are not ruling it out," said Pete Raimondi, Chair of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department at UC Santa Cruz." (http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/01/us-residents-monitor-fukushima-radiation-201411911450378232.html) Additionally, ENENews is "cherry picking" reports; take this report: "Gov’t Test: Cattle feed at California dairy farm had 300 pCi/kg of radioactive cesium after Fukushima; 9-month gap between when sample harvested and when received by lab — New UC Berkeley study reveals over 3,500 pCi/kg of cesium deposited on nearby roadside". (http://enenews.com/govt-doc-cattle-feed-california-dairy-farm-300-pcikg-radioactive-cesium-after-fukushima-tested-9-months-after-being-harvested-berkeley-study-reveals-3500-pcikg-cesium) Let's face it, neither one of us is an environmental scientist or a nuclear physicist; the figures and table don't necessarily mean anything. All we know is if something is higher than normal we get worried. Instead, let's have a look at the conclusion of the report (which ENENews didn't put up in their article): "The fission products measured in this work ... were not found at any time to be of concern to public or environmental health. These conclusions are justified not only through governmental limits of exposure and activities, but also by direct comparison of natural radioactivities also present in all samples measured." http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.7314v1.pdf The message that we should be taking from all this is not that Fukushima fall out IS causing problems but rather than we should be prudent and monitor the situation so that if it does change, we can be alerted.

Steven, I think you missed the point: I showed several sources saying similar things. I included the one from the "educate yourself" website because it is pro-conspiracy and should avoid the tag of being a "government mouthpiece". If i just posted what I consider to be 'reputable' website, people would claim that the sources are part of the conspiracy (as you have all but done with the BBC).

A great post that has literally dozens of images showing how this system has been used for over 40 years: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-chemtrail-plane-interior-ballast-barrels.661/

I saw this article which claims a Facebook page was taken down because they posted images which proved a "chemtrail coverup". Okay, so now here are the facts: it's the inside of the Being 787 Dreamliner test aircraft. The tanks are water tanks which allow you to change the centre of gravity for the aircraft in flight. For example, what would happen if the aircraft was only half full, they were heavy customers with maximum carry-on and they all sat at the front of the aircraft? By transferring water around the aircraft, it allows you simulate these kind of conditions. It's not a "chemtrail cover-up" as these brainless bozos would have you believe. After all, if they were trying to keep it a secret why would it be freely accessible via the Boeing website (and from 2010, three years before the person claims their Facebook was taken down)? http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/08/bca_inside_787_08_09_10.html Why would they allow the public inside the aircraft during an airshow (again, a couple of years before the claim was made)? http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/07/photos-inside-a-boeing-787-dreamliner-test-plane-at-eaa-airventure/#.Uv_pCvmSySo The same system is used aboard the Boeing 747-8: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/peek-inside-boeing-747-8/ Bottom line: chemtrail claims are nonsense.

Steven, You are using only one source for your posts: enenews.com, which is not exactly independent but rather has a distinct bias: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-fukushima-released-76-trillion-becquerels-of-plutonium.3008/ http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/ http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fukushimaradiationpsyops19may12.shtml How about getting a variety of sources and see what the consensus is? As a matter of interest, I watched a programme on BBC Horizons where physics Professor Jim Al-Khalili discusses Fukushima and Chernobyl, and the real results of these terrible events. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014s49z

explain why they (the refutations) are wrong.Burton Since the refutation assumed the assumption of the young earth people (rapid decay) they have assumed a nonetablishment viewpoint (rapid decay) then to be consistant they should (can) assume that the heat radiation would not effect life. BTW rapid decay seems to be correct (possible) by recent evidence,thus putting one one the side of young earth scientists,(EXPLAINED) NOW ALSO please let me add = THEY DONT REFUTE ARGON DECAY<DO NOT ADDRESS IT> see below POINT # 60 http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers ============================ A million-year-old volcano would eliminate argon The answer relates to the fact that not only helium, but also argon, can leak from minerals. The hotter the minerals, the faster the leaks.11 Feldspar, a common mineral in the granitic rock (Figure 3), contains a lot of potassium, about 0.01% of which is the radioactive isotope potassium-40. Today it decays very slowly into the stable isotope argon-40. Comparing the two isotopes and assuming today’s rate of decay is the basis for the familiar ‘potassium-argon’ dating method, Harrison et al. found that in the deepest, hottest part of the borehole, over 20% of the nuclear-decay-generated argon has leaked out of the feldspar crystals. They also measured how fast argon leaks from the feldspar at various depths in the borehole. Using those data, I show that even assuming that the deepest sample did not get hotter than its present temperature, it would have lost nearly all of its argon in a million years.12 That is why Harrison et al. were forced to assume the temperature was very low until relatively recently. Then, they assumed that some unknown, unspecified source of heat rapidly raised the temperature in just twenty thousand years up to today’s high temperature. Creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner told me that “given the small value for the measured heat conductivity of granite, such a temperature scenario for this site is not defensible, since it violates the simple and well-known physics of heat diffusion.” Argon data say the site is young The rock in the borehole is dry, which combined with its low heat conductivity means that its temperature cannot change rapidly. Even if we assume Harrison et al. were correct in postulating a recent (and as yet completely unobserved) intrusion of lava very close to the borehole, the temperature could not have changed by more than 50 Celsius degrees (90 Fahrenheit degrees) over the past five millennia.13 That is a relatively small change. More reasonable uniformitarian heat models14 for the site done by Los Alamos National Laboratory give much smaller changes. That allows us to assume (for simplicity of calculation) that the rock temperature has been roughly constant over those past few thousand years. The uniformitarian scenario of long ages would leave the rocks with almost no helium and little argon, contrary to the observations of both RATE and Harrison et al. Then, using Harrison’s own data and equations, I calculate that the feldspar in the rock formation would have lost the observed amount of argon in only 5,100 years, give or take a few millennia according to my estimate of the experimental uncertainty in the data. This age is consistent with results in the Harrison et al. paper, although they wanted to regard the numbers as indicating only the duration of their assumed fast heating pulse after their alleged eons of incredible coolness. This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation. So now we have two different age measurements using two different gases from two different types of nuclear decay in two different minerals—and the two methods agree within their error bounds. In contrast, the uniformitarian scenario of long ages would leave the rocks with almost no helium and little argon, contrary to the observations of both RATE and Harrison et al. Steven, I'm having some trouble with this. The "Point 60" link does not seem to lead to the source of the text quoted under it; could you help me and point me to the source for your text? BTW, apologies for the delay but as I said in the opening post, I question whether it is actually worth debating this issue. Add into the mix that this is a highly complex area in which I have no expertise, and that I have little time to spare for this task, so my replies will take a while. Sorry!

I'm a little disturbed by this; I might be misinterpreting it but it seems to me to be very homophobic. That's an attitude I do not agree with.

Can you be a christian and still believe in evolution? Why, YES: http://www.oldearth.org/index.htm

Norman, I think Steven has given you your answer.... but not the one he intended to give, I believe.

Sorry Steven but YOU are regurgitating their claims. If you believe the refutations are wrong then please explain why they (the refutations) are wrong.

Number 60: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe#60

Actually, I'll put on my Moderator hat here. You can respond to refutation one at a time. You can choose the first in your list of 101 reasons, or choose what you think are best in order of importance. In any case, to avoid a huge overwhelming wave of issues, let's deal with each one by one. You can post a refutation on one of the "101" one at a time and not more than one at any time until the issue is closed. The issue is closed when either myself or Steven decided that the discussion regarding the issue is closed; the other party does not have to agree with the decision. That will prevent either one of us "spamming" the subject with more than one post, and whenever one or the other closes the issue it will be to the reader to decide who has won the particular issue. Overall, they can decide whose arguments are more correct.

Zero responses? Sorry Steven "Mr Wall of Text" Gaal, but did you look at the link I provided? That refuted every one of the "101 reasons" you posted. If you have an issue with the refutation, please address them one by one, providing reasons why they are not valid responses.... not in a wall of text PLEASE! I'll respond to each reply as I get the time.

Don Batten? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

But that may only be valid if you accept the proposition that a god exists. Anyway, this thread is not about being an atheist or an agnostic, about believing in a god or buddha or indeed a flying spaghetti monster; that's faith and your own concern. The thread is about creationism and how it is not rational nor compatible with good science. It should be noted, however, that there are many people who have a strong religious faith (and are of different faiths) yet have no issues with evolution.

That is, in a way, very easy: we don't know. Science doesn't try to explain them from a philosophical viewpoint. Projects like the Large Hadron Collider are trying to help explain how we (everything) started but that's about it. Besides, if the creation of all we know - life, the universe, everything - was a random chance happening of events, then who says there has to be a purpose, a destiny?

I can understand how some people believe in god; that's okay. I'm an atheist and don't believe, but I can understand some people have a faith. I do not understand how those people can let their faith over-rule common sense and science to make them believe a ridiculous notion: that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I don't think it is true but if you said to me a power created the universe millions of years ago, well, the facts don't disprove that: I don't agree but I can't say you are wrong.... but to dismiss fact because it clashes with your dogma, well, you are simply wrong. I'm not sure if I agree with Richard Dawkins; debating these idiots does lend them a certain credence... but leaving this kind of stupidity unchecked can lead to some people actually falling prey to it, believing it, not checking facts, not applying logic, etc. http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/05/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-creationism-science-debate http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2014/jan/07/creationism-evolution-science-lessons-video

The risk of radiation exposure is not a show-stopper for a long-term manned mission to Mars, new results from NASA's Curiosity rover suggest. A mission consisting of a 180-day cruise toMars, a 500-day stay on the Red Planet and a 180-day return flight to Earth would expose astronauts to a cumulative radiation dose of about 1.01 sieverts, measurements by Curiosity's Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) instrument indicate. To put that in perspective: The European Space Agency generally limits its astronauts to a total career radiation dose of 1 sievert, which is associated with a 5-percent increase in lifetime fatal cancer risk. [Mars Radiation Threat to Astronauts Explained (Infographics)] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radiation-on-mars-managea/

Steven, You misunderstand. I am not commenting on the accuracy or otherwise on the subject matter; I was commenting on your (and others) propensity for posting "walls of text"; I find it counter-productive as many people will not spend the time required to read what has been written. Since this is apparently a verbatim copy of what was on a blog, I would just summarise the main points and link to the blog itself. That's just my opinion; you just keep doing what you think is best. As far as "didly-squat" is concerned, we Australians are not quite so parochial: many of us know quite a lot of terms which have foreign origins. I know what a "Monday morning quarterback" is, what I should do if I hear "Blues and twos"; I even know that when I say I'm getting my thongs and getting pissed that most Americans would have a completely misinterpreted idea of what I am going to do!