You said you didn’t know the specific on the bombs dropped.
Ok, so 0 information on the bomb dropped.
But that Chernobyl created a massive cloud of fallout that impacted neighbouring countries and caused acid rain.
Well, that’s true. But that wasn’t a fusion explosion.
So, it felt like you were trying to relate 2 unrelated things. Like an apples-to-oranges situation.
I feel that I clarified that the bombs dropped were designed to converted all fusable material to energy. They were literally designed to weaponise fusion.
And that the fallout from Chernobyl wasn’t caused by material turning into energy (ie fusion), but from particle dispersion.
So, I guess.
In that you said you had 0 knowledge of Thing A, and stated an unrelated fact about Thing B. Where both things are true, and are related by the fact that nuclear fuel is involved. But that’s as far as the relationships go
But everything you said after “yes” does nothing to support the “yes”
It’s two completely different scenarios with different transmission vectors and risks
To put this in other terms you are conflating and misrepresenting facts either intentionally or unintentionally and it comes across as fear-mongering misinformation to those who have a more in depth grasp on radiology.
You’re more likely to be exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation from a coa firedl power plant than any detonated nuclear device.
Read a book or two on the subject matter please. There’s nothing to argue about. You are factually incorrect. I’m not being mean just explaining why you are incorrect and suggesting you enrich yourself.
That’s precisely what I said, with slightly different wording. But thanks for the additional detail.
I mean, I guess? Kinda?
You said you didn’t know the specific on the bombs dropped.
Ok, so 0 information on the bomb dropped.
But that Chernobyl created a massive cloud of fallout that impacted neighbouring countries and caused acid rain.
Well, that’s true. But that wasn’t a fusion explosion.
So, it felt like you were trying to relate 2 unrelated things. Like an apples-to-oranges situation.
I feel that I clarified that the bombs dropped were designed to converted all fusable material to energy. They were literally designed to weaponise fusion.
And that the fallout from Chernobyl wasn’t caused by material turning into energy (ie fusion), but from particle dispersion.
So, I guess.
In that you said you had 0 knowledge of Thing A, and stated an unrelated fact about Thing B. Where both things are true, and are related by the fact that nuclear fuel is involved. But that’s as far as the relationships go
But everything you said after “yes” does nothing to support the “yes”
That’s a really long way to admit that I was right, and you just didn’t like my answer anyway.
With all respect no you were not correct.
It’s two completely different scenarios with different transmission vectors and risks
To put this in other terms you are conflating and misrepresenting facts either intentionally or unintentionally and it comes across as fear-mongering misinformation to those who have a more in depth grasp on radiology.
You’re more likely to be exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation from a coa firedl power plant than any detonated nuclear device.
Thank you for confirming I haven’t seriously misread something here.
Felt like I was taking crazy pills for a second there!
You do not speak with respect. And, with all due respect, I’m not interested in having an argument. Have a nice day.
Read a book or two on the subject matter please. There’s nothing to argue about. You are factually incorrect. I’m not being mean just explaining why you are incorrect and suggesting you enrich yourself.