Ant Sinclair

So in Your oppinion and others here, would You say receiving approximately -18 Rep points for My exchange with Strange on ONE point was FAIR? ???

I have been keeping a close eye on My own profile since Mine and Stranges discussion in the Canadians & Aliens thread, at the start of this I was on +8Rep points, after our exchange in which I thought at the time Strange was responding more like a politician than a scientist My Rep points slid to -5, maybe some members thought I was being unfairly treated or gave Me Rep points for recent posts which took My tally to 0Rep points (better than -5). Over the last couple of days My Rep points have sunk back down to -4, And so I again I call for both +ve and -ve Rep Points to be displayed on a Members Profile. Is My case an indication that the Rep system is being used Vindictively??? ?

I'll make the Synopsis a priority this evening swansont as I have been busy working on the Energy Constants thread and the H-Bonds thread inbetween discussions with Strange, Myself personally watched the video whilst doing this work, and as I may not have picked up every detail watching it this way will have to re-watch it to give a fair synopsis.

Is this Dr. Graeme Pearman? Would He be as knowledgable as a Professor? Have there ever been any scientists implicated in giving false implications on scientific subjects due to different causes of impartiality?

In this de smog blog who is claiming He is not credible Strange? Could You summarise the blog and name the credible source denouncing Prof Bob Carter?

Sorry Strange You're correct in Your request and I will put together a synopsis of His lecture and post it here. I had aimed this at the Forums Experts and may have wrongly presumed that the Experts would have known of Him.

Below is a link to a video, in the video Professor Bob Carter lectures on climate-change. Would his views hold with the Experts here on Science Forums? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DRCISn1KfKQ

Because if it's used incorrectly people are made to "look" like their posts are worthless even if some of their posts are good, or say bad through lack of knowledge.It's been known for reporting potential hazards In work places have turned into a "Vendetta" system with allegiances being formed amongst staff playing a tit for tat reporting game that leads to an unhappy enviroment in the work-place and because of this companies try to create No-Blame Cultures!

The voice in the CSB video stated one of two pods 27V solenoid battery system had been incorrectly wired causing the battery/batteries to drain and the second pods actual solenoid was wired incorrectly so it couldn't operate, these two systems were the "full-back" in an emergency situation. This could indicate two things to Me; 1)It wasn't tested by the manufacturer or the end-user. 2)If it had been tested by both the manufacturer and the end-user prior to final placement on the sea-floor that something must have happened to it just before its' final placement. I don't know if anyone else cares to comment on this thread but for Myself I feel I have no need to progress this any further having got to the Points that I wanted to get to, so Thank You Strange for Your assistance in doing so

If that description of the CSB findings is correct then it sounds very bad. "Very bad" that two safety systems that were so very, very critically Important for protecting the crew on-board the rig and the enviroment, were both wrongly wired, would You not call it "criminal"?

Maybe there should be two values shown on a Persons profile of Rep points, ie a tally of greens and reds shown side by side so that people can see that Posters have had positive feedback aswell as negative!

It is the Chemical Safety Boards FINDINGS, Why Can You Not Comment On What's In Front Of You, You're Not Normally Shy On Passing Comment?

??? ?

Do We know where the Coriums of Reactors 1,2 &3 are at, at the present time? Is it possible these could have "broken" containment? Looking at pictures/drawings of the strata under Fukushima it appears the strata are inclined downwards towards the ocean. If water is flowing down these inclined strata and these Coriums meet with this water what could be the consequences?

Why would I assume it?, because it has been branded all over the internet as a reply to challenges on the seriousness of the ongoing damage being done by the Fukushima incident thats why!

Agreed when science facts are being evaluated but disagree when Rep points are awarded for derogatory/jokey statements or statements like "post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy", why should folk reading threads be made to believe that a individual should be trusted more for copying and pasting a phrase from the internet?

I doubt the veracity of his information, not his sincerity in believing It. I suppose he could be deliberately lying, but that is usually the last thing I would consider (well, aliens walking among us is the last thing I would consider). My niece is at Uni taking an English course, I'll ask Her to run this by Her lecturers to see how they would view/interpret the above statenent and get back to You!

Well then does there need to be a second system put in place, one for agreeing with statements and one for science facts/science speculations?

The Rep system on Scienceforums.net seems at times to be a method of bullying induviduals, take the to & thro example of Myself & Strange on Canadians and Aliens. The thread was in the lounge not in the Politics Section and to Me "A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man" when Strange said; I doubt the veracity of his information, not his sincerity in believing It. I suppose he could be deliberately lying, but that is usually the last thing I would consider (well, aliens walking among us is the last thing I would consider). So when I pressed Strange for a direct answer(this thread was not in the politics section) He continued dancing with words earning Me over -10 Rep Points in total, this to Me makes a mockery of the Rep system and down-right bullying! Why is the Rep system even needed? Are the folk who partake on here words and statements not enough to judge them? In fact I believe it would be a good idea to remove the Rep system totally!

"Between 21 March and mid-July around 2.7 × 1016 Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean". The above, is this approximate 4 month period of this year? If so what is the total mass of Cesium137 released from Fukushima since the accident/incident occurred, and also what are the total masses of other radioactive nuclides released including Strontium?

It is because of statements like the one Steven Starr made the public(including Myself) gets "worried" and needs to be put into context. In trying to put things into perspective, exactly what mass of Cesium137 would render 1000 square km of dry-land Inhabitable? Is the below statement incorrect, because if it is correct 8.4Kg/2g seems a large amount of contamination! Less than two grams of Cesium-137, a piece smaller than an American dime, if made into microparticles and evenly distributed as a radioactive gas over an area of one square mile, will turn that square mile into an uninhabitable radioactive exclusion zone. Central Park in New York City can be made uninhabitable by 2 grams of microparticles of Cesium-137.

I said in another post that there seems to be so much info/disinfo on the internet these days, In Your opinion is Steven Starr wrong John in His analogy?

The link above is to a video of Steven Starr(Director of The Clinical Laboratory Science Program Of The University Of Missouri). In the video He puts into perspective Potassium40 and Cesium137. "Comparing Potassium40 to Cesium137 is like comparing a stick of dynamite to an Atomic Bomb"

Greg - He may want to eat Your brains not sip tea wth You so be careful now

I'm trying to point You towards the wiring of the AMF Dead-Man Blue & Yellow Pods in particular. I believe I have transcripted the CBS findings fairly accurately and supplied the link to the same! Sorry for the typo it is the CSB not CBS - CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD!