Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Waiting on the End Times
Macavity
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 67 (82013)
02-01-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
01-31-2004 4:53 PM


Re: Waiting on the End Times
You're very welcome, Buz.
The reason I remember this thread is cos it's the first one I participated in. Dunno if I'm an angel/messenger from The Lord, though... I hope you will recall that I definately didn't agree with any of the "predictions" that you listed and tried to justify on that thread. As far as I am concerned, the other posters (and to a lesser extent, myself) thoroughly examined and debunked your arguments---especially your contention that global warming was foretold by the Bible.
Buz writes:
This goes to show, there's more readers out there looking on these debates than we all realize! Thanks, Mac!
I think that's probably true. Additionally, I spend waaaaaaay too much time reading this board. Clearly, I have NO life!
--Macavity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2004 4:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2004 11:04 PM Macavity has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 67 (82051)
02-01-2004 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by sidelined
01-31-2004 7:29 PM


Re: i'm telling the truth
I would like to hear what effect it had on,say,Edmonton Alberta.Please explain to us the extent that the nearly the whole world has been affected.
Here's this:
The radioactive clouds covered the entire Northern Hemisphere, drifted across Europe and affected the United States and Canada. The accumulation and the impact of the radioactivity released from the Chernobyl catastrophe may be impossible to detail, as it also poisoned land, air and animals. It poisoned cow meat and cow milk. It poisoned sheep in Britain, reindeer in Norway, fish in Sweden and Switzerland. So intense was the irradiation in the vicinity of Chernobyl, it killed trees in what became known as the "red forest" syndrome.
Chernobyl is still killing people.
htt://Sorry - we can't find that page

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by sidelined, posted 01-31-2004 7:29 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2004 11:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 67 (82054)
02-01-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Macavity
02-01-2004 5:12 PM


Re: Waiting on the End Times
As far as I am concerned, the other posters (and to a lesser extent, myself) thoroughly examined and debunked your arguments---especially your contention that global warming was foretold by the Bible.
It has been documented already in this thread that the Bible foretold global warming. Care to refute these? LOL on those other yonder arguments as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Macavity, posted 02-01-2004 5:12 PM Macavity has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Macavity, posted 02-02-2004 2:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 64 of 67 (82057)
02-01-2004 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-31-2004 7:09 PM


Re: i'm telling the truth
Hey, don't get sore.
I'm not the slightest bit sore - I just think you should run through the calculation for yourself. About three of us on this board have done it for you in the past, with various amounts of water, but it hasn't sunken in to your consciousness yet.
If you do bother to try, you will plainly see the evaporation of even a half-percent of the earth's water into the atmosphere just plain WILL NOT be very comfortable. It would make for nice boiled lobster, but there wouldn't be time to eat 'em.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2004 7:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 65 of 67 (82063)
02-01-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
02-01-2004 10:51 PM


Re: i'm telling the truth
And exactly how much, as a percentage of background, did Chernobyl raise the radiation levels in Edmonton for how long?
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c04.html
Says:
The whole body doses received during the first year following the accident generally ranged from 0.05 mGy in Europe, form 0.005 to 0.1 mGy in Asia, and of the order of 0.001 mGy in North America. The total whole-body doses expected to be accumulated during the lifetimes of the individuals are estimated to be a factor of 3 greater than the doses recieved during the first year (UN88).
In summary:'
The doses recieved by populations outside the former Soviet Union were relatively low, and showed large differences from one country to another depending mainly upon whether rainfall occured during the passage of the radioactive cloud.
Note that thyroid doses were higher.
Also note that it may be possible to detect effects of as little as the .001 mGY but that this is a very low dose.
from:http://www.orau.gov/...orkshop/Abstracts/PSykes_abstract.pdf
quote:
A CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv = 1 mGy in the case of x rays.) may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000. This increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer from radiation can be compared to the natural incidence of fatal cancer in the U.S. population, about 1 chance in 5. In other words, for any one person the risk of radiation-induced cancer is much smaller than the natural risk of cancer. Nevertheless, this small increase in radiation-associated cancer risk for an individual can become a public health concern if large numbers of the population undergo increased numbers of CT screening procedures of uncertain benefit.
from: Page Not Found | FDA
Note that the CT scan dose seems to be about 10,000 times higher than the Chernobly dose in North America.
I think you were claiming some large world-wide effect for the reactor accident. I also thing you are demonstratably wrong.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2004 10:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 02-14-2004 5:13 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Macavity
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 67 (82072)
02-02-2004 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
02-01-2004 11:04 PM


Re: Waiting room of the End Times
Buz, effortlessly slipping the surly bonds of Earth, writes:
It has been documented already in this thread that the Bible foretold global warming. Care to refute these? LOL on those other yonder arguments as well.
Incorrect. What has been documented is your assertion that the Bible foretells global warming. You claim that Revelations 11:6 and 16:8 support your contention. I do not agree. I see nothing in those verses that indicate global warming.
Why are you so very, very certain your interpretation is correct? Is it at all possible that you could be quite spectacularly mistaken? Can you cite any reputable scholarly interpretations (of those verses) that support your contention? Or is this just your pet theory?
One more thing: Without looking it up, can you tell me just what global warming is, what is thought to cause it, and what some of its repercussions may be?
Looking forward to your reply,
--Macavity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2004 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 67 of 67 (86236)
02-14-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NosyNed
02-01-2004 11:56 PM


Logic and End Times radiation==>
When I was a young and naive believer, I read many books written by many Christian authors which attempted to tie specific scriptures in with a literal interpretation of the biblical prediction of the last days. Logically, I had to put the Bible aside since I trusted the words of Jesus who told me, in effect,that my best strategy was to trust Him today and teach others about His love and wisdom yet to know that bad times may come. Logically,looking at the world today, I believe that the likely scenario that we as a people will deal with next will be a stronger version of 9/11. On that fateful day, 5 planes were used as the instrument of destruction. I believe that the next major event triggered by humans against humans will be somewhere on the magnitude of 5 nukes hitting 5 cities in the world at once.
It may be only 1 nuke, but I would think that if any terror/jihad organizations were able to get one, they would wait and get as many as they could before launching this attack since, by definition, absolute military marshall law will occur after this event. My question is this:What will be the social and economic impact of this next inevitable attack?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2004 11:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024