The Failure Of Climate Change Denial

[Liminal]

yeah nuclear doesn't have any negative externalities What exactly are you doing down here again?

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

 

[jc456]

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

 

[Liminal]

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

 

[bripat9643]

So you are saying nuclear plants are dirtier than coal plants? Evidence to that?

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

Am I? Can you prove anyone even suffered from radiation sickness as a result of Fukushima? Please post all the cites you like.

 

[Liminal]

repeat after me"Fu-ku-shi-ma". Slowly now.

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

Am I? Can you prove anyone even suffered from radiation sickness as a result of Fukushima? Please post all the cites you like.

Maybe you're thinking of Hiroshima. This works a little differently, read and learn.
The Crushing Effects Of Radiation From The Fukushima Disaster On The Ecosystem Are Being Slowly Revealed Business Insider

 

[bripat9643]

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

 

[bripat9643]

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

Am I? Can you prove anyone even suffered from radiation sickness as a result of Fukushima? Please post all the cites you like.

Maybe you're thinking of Hiroshima. This works a little differently, read and learn.
The Crushing Effects Of Radiation From The Fukushima Disaster On The Ecosystem Are Being Slowly Revealed Business Insider

No, I'm not thinking of Hiroshima. There were actual deaths from radiation as a result of Hiroshima.

 

[jc456]

How many people were killed by Fukushima?

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

so, how many people were injured from that report, how about private property? again, you failed at a rebuttal to the post. I stand on my merits. Your article didn't address one of those points on the post. so you failed to rebut!!

 

[Liminal]

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

so, how many people were injured from that report, how about private property? again, you failed at a rebuttal to the post. I stand on my merits. Your article didn't address one of those points on the post. so you failed to rebut!!

And you continue spouting opinions while never presenting any evidence to support your claims.

 

[Liminal]

Remains to be seen. Ask again in ten years.
Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster PSR

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

 

[bripat9643]

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

so, how many people were injured from that report, how about private property? again, you failed at a rebuttal to the post. I stand on my merits. Your article didn't address one of those points on the post. so you failed to rebut!!

And you continue spouting opinions while never presenting any evidence to support your claims.

I've posted all kinds of evidence. You simply refuse to read it.

 

[bripat9643]

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

Hmmm, no. The point is that no one is going to die of cancer as a result of Fukushima. If you think the results can't be predicted, then that kind of makes your dire predictions unjustified, doesn't it?

 

[jc456]

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

 

[jc456]

The answer is:
Total people killed by radiation, zero.
Total injured, zero.
Total private property damaged by radiation, zero.
Expected long term effects on people, zero.

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

so, how many people were injured from that report, how about private property? again, you failed at a rebuttal to the post. I stand on my merits. Your article didn't address one of those points on the post. so you failed to rebut!!

And you continue spouting opinions while never presenting any evidence to support your claims.

again, what friggin claim did I make? You asked me to read a story. I did. I asked you what relevance did that have to what was posted. And you say I have a claim. What the f is wrong with you?

 

[Liminal]

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

so, how many people were injured from that report, how about private property? again, you failed at a rebuttal to the post. I stand on my merits. Your article didn't address one of those points on the post. so you failed to rebut!!

And you continue spouting opinions while never presenting any evidence to support your claims.

I've posted all kinds of evidence. You simply refuse to read it.

I wasn't referring to you. That comment was intended for someone else. Pay more attention, try to keep up.

 

[Liminal]

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

 

[Liminal]

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

so, how many people were injured from that report, how about private property? again, you failed at a rebuttal to the post. I stand on my merits. Your article didn't address one of those points on the post. so you failed to rebut!!

And you continue spouting opinions while never presenting any evidence to support your claims.

again, what friggin claim did I make? You asked me to read a story. I did. I asked you what relevance did that have to what was posted. And you say I have a claim. What the f is wrong with you?

You never, ever post any kind of evidence to support your claims. All you ever have are baseless opinions and idle speculation.

 

[Liminal]

Now you're just lying. Why do you bother?

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

Hmmm, no. The point is that no one is going to die of cancer as a result of Fukushima. If you think the results can't be predicted, then that kind of makes your dire predictions unjustified, doesn't it?

No doubt those people can all move back home any day now.

 

[jc456]

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects - Atomic Insights​

Fukushima will result in no casualties and no long term radiation related illnesses, because the key mistakes that were made in the initial response to the accident at Chernobyl were not repeated. Worker doses at Fukushima were controlled so that no one was exposed to dangerous radiation doses. The public was sufficiently informed about radiation releases so that no one drank milk that was contaminated by I-131.

The Breakthrough Institute - Five Surprising Public Health Facts About Fukushima

Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions

Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat

Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable

Let’s crunch the numbers. UNSCEAR estimated the average radiation doses that would have been incurred inside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone in the first year after the accident, had there been no evacuation: the highest was Tomioka township’s 51 millisieverts.8 The Committee also reckoned that 80-year lifetime doses in contaminated areas will be two to three times the first-year dose. (Radiation levels drop quickly because of radioactive decay and weathering.)9From there we can reckon the dose people would have received from fallout had they lived their whole lives in the evacuation zone: about 100-150 mSv in the most contaminated townships, substantially less elsewhere in the zone. Natural background radiation in the United States averages about 2.4 mSv per year, so 150 mSv is about equal to the lifetime background dose of a typical American.


So how unhealthy is that extra radiation? Not very. Again, radiation is a weak carcinogen: applying the LNT theory and standard risk factors from the National Academy of Sciences,10 a lifetime dose of 150 mSv confers a fatal cancer risk of about 0.9 percent — the same odds an American runs of dying in a car crash.11 Those are average risks; there are hotspots with higher radiation levels, and children would have faced somewhat higher risks, especially from thyroid doses in the first three months after the spew. Still, these numbers give a good ballpark sense of the health risks from fallout in the Fukushima evacuation zone: about the same as the risk of having a driver’s license.

Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group

Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure​

In other words: The results will take years to measure.

and still no rebuttal. so typical of you all. ha, is he wrong yet?

Apparently the unfortunate results of a severe reading comprehension problem.

and again you haven't made a rebuttal argument to the post you responded to with your link. Again, you linked to a paper that made no mention of loss of life nor personal property on a post that had those references set at zero. So you calling out the poster was a lie. you lied and continue to lie. LIE............R

 

[jc456]

and yet............................you can't provide any rebuttal. what fool you are.

Is that because you can't be bothered to read links?

so, how many people were injured from that report, how about private property? again, you failed at a rebuttal to the post. I stand on my merits. Your article didn't address one of those points on the post. so you failed to rebut!!

And you continue spouting opinions while never presenting any evidence to support your claims.

again, what friggin claim did I make? You asked me to read a story. I did. I asked you what relevance did that have to what was posted. And you say I have a claim. What the f is wrong with you?

You never, ever post any kind of evidence to support your claims. All you ever have are baseless opinions and idle speculation.

my evidence is your own article you fool!!!! Go read it yourself because obviously you didn't. you lie.LIE..........................R