.....

What I can do though is sift through it all and pick up stuff that I believe adds to the possibility of fabrication. Whether I can directly prove it is not an issue, as most of the science that I'm against cannot be directly proved by anyone here.

But that is the point.  If you can't give any reasons why you think that something is fake beyond "it looks fishy to me", then we have no reason to believe you.  If you take the idea that anything that can be done for real can be faked, then you run the risk of believing that nothing is real.  That really isn't a very productive way to live.

Obviously I know you and others can say, "yes we can because so and so proved it and all the scientists aren't all wrong."
You can also cite the equations and calculations for much of this stuff, yet if you are 100% honest with yourself, you cannot say with absolute certainty that it's all legitimate.

I've been through enough science courses to know that the instructors walk you through step-by-step where a lot of those calculations came from and actually perform experiments in a lab to test those calculations.  So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that a lot of the fundamental concepts that you reject are legitimate.

It is possible that you have been duped into believing what you believe, right?

Some of it?  Maybe.  All of it?  No.

It's also possible that I'm barking up the wrong tree as well, because I cannot directly prove anything either, physically.
That still does not stop me questioning it and also it still does not stop you counteracting my questions, as that's what keeps up a sort of challenge, where there is either an eventual stalemate or one or the other figures that they are wrong about their thoughts.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't question everything.  You should absolutely question everything.  I just asking you to not assume that all of the answers are wrong without doing the proper research.

What I am arguing about is the means of how things operate and I ask questions about those means.
For instance, rockets in a vacuum.
Lumps of metal smashed together can blow up cities.
I question things and I am sceptical about things, until I am satisfied that I am wrong or the odds are stacked against me.
At this moment in time, I haven't changed my stance and I'm probably more convinced of fabrication if the truth be known.

Sure, it's easy to doubt something that sounds absurd.  But what I was to tell you that atoms of certain elements are unstable and periodically "explosively self-destruct" releasing energy and "shrapnel" and some of the shrapnel from these explosions can cause other nearby unstable atoms to explode as well and these explosions can cause more explosions and so on an so on in a chain reaction, and if you get enough of these unstable atoms close enough together, then this chain reaction becomes uncontrollable and the result is a massive explosion that could destroy a city.  Does that sound more reasonable that "smashing lumps of metal together can blow up a city"?

Of course it sounds reasonable. I've diluted it to lumps of metal because of that very reasonable reason.

Ahh, so you don't want a reasonable discussion.  That explains a lot.  Good day.

What I am arguing about is the means of how things operate and I ask questions about those means.
For instance, rockets in a vacuum.
Lumps of metal smashed together can blow up cities.
I question things and I am sceptical about things, until I am satisfied that I am wrong or the odds are stacked against me.
At this moment in time, I haven't changed my stance and I'm probably more convinced of fabrication if the truth be known.

Science is the result of people questioning and being sceptical about things, it didn't just spring fully formed one day from the mind of Steven Hawking. If you read up on the history of our scientific progress you'll realize that it's a true progression from knowing really nothing but what our own senses tell us to being able to draw some pretty powerful conclusions about how our world works. Accepted scientific theories seriously aren't just scientists making things up, and while it's debatable as to whether we can know if any of them are true, we can confidently use them because they are consistent with each other and they make astounding predictions about natural phenomena, often before we can actually observe them.

Let me give you an example: the search for DNA, a molecule that we can observe with our own eyes, was driven by the knowledge that there must be some biochemical means of storing genes, which we know exist because of Mendel's observations and we know must evolve because of Darwin's observations, which were corroborated with fossil evidence that also predicted continental drift, a theory that arose to explain obervations about the shape of Earth's continents. All of these relatively diverse theories can make predictions about one another. Could they be wrong? Possibly. But with every new piece of data that fits with accepted explanations, that becomes less and less likely.

There's a difference between healthy skepticism and rejecting scientific theory because it is difficult or because you mistrust scientists (which, if you have ever met a real scientist, is a ridiculous proposition). Science is difficult and complex, but that doesn't make it elitist — it just means that scientists are doing their jobs. In fact, most of our theories are a result of healthy skepticism; questions about retrograde motion brought us heliocentrism, blackbody radiation brought us quantum theory, trying to reconcile EMF theory and Newtonian mechanics brought us relativity, observations about diseases brought us germ theory, the list goes on. The beauty of science isn't that we can come up with nice-sounding ideas about how the world works, because in reality the details are usually horribly complex and can take centuries to work out. The beauty is that our best ideas are all consistent with each other, and can be used to make predictions and draw conclusions about the world, improve human lives, and provide a framework to ask new questions and test new ideas. It's a beautiful process, frankly one of the best things a human being can be part of, and if you can't see this beauty I honestly feel sad for you.

If my daughter brought home a guy who looked iffy, I could warn her about him, yet I would be doing so by judging the book by it's cover and she could say, " no , no, he's nice, he just looks crazy."
I could take her at her word but I'd be more vigilant and gather information to satisfy my own worries to make sure the guy is sound.
If the more I delve into it, to find that he is a bit iffy, I'm going to delve deeper. If he turns out to be a good guy, I'll give myself a slap and start to trust him.

Well I'm like this with the science I'm arguing against and I'm gathering info as I go, yet only time will tell whether it turns out to be good science or Pinocchio science.

(Emphasis my own)

You should take this idea and run with it.  Gather more information on the science behind these things before you cast them off as conspiracies.  You sound rather ignorant about nuclear physics and there is a good deal of information out there; scientific journals, textbooks and so on. This is what I have tried to do with science in my life, even though it is only a hobby. Right now, with your frame of mind, you seem to look for possibilities of conspiracy but maybe if you read -a lot- and try to understand the technical material you can see where it comes from?  That would be a much more credible place to level your criticism from.  Do what you will, you make me think, which is why I am here.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 21, 2013, 06:49:55 PM

What I am arguing about is the means of how things operate and I ask questions about those means.
For instance, rockets in a vacuum.
Lumps of metal smashed together can blow up cities.
I question things and I am sceptical about things, until I am satisfied that I am wrong or the odds are stacked against me.
At this moment in time, I haven't changed my stance and I'm probably more convinced of fabrication if the truth be known.

Science is the result of people questioning and being sceptical about things, it didn't just spring fully formed one day from the mind of Steven Hawking. If you read up on the history of our scientific progress you'll realize that it's a true progression from knowing really nothing but what our own senses tell us to being able to draw some pretty powerful conclusions about how our world works. Accepted scientific theories seriously aren't just scientists making things up, and while it's debatable as to whether we can know if any of them are true, we can confidently use them because they are consistent with each other and they make astounding predictions about natural phenomena, often before we can actually observe them.

Let me give you an example: the search for DNA, a molecule that we can observe with our own eyes, was driven by the knowledge that there must be some biochemical means of storing genes, which we know exist because of Mendel's observations and we know must evolve because of Darwin's observations, which were corroborated with fossil evidence that also predicted continental drift, a theory that arose to explain obervations about the shape of Earth's continents. All of these relatively diverse theories can make predictions about one another. Could they be wrong? Possibly. But with every new piece of data that fits with accepted explanations, that becomes less and less likely.

There's a difference between healthy skepticism and rejecting scientific theory because it is difficult or because you mistrust scientists (which, if you have ever met a real scientist, is a ridiculous proposition). Science is difficult and complex, but that doesn't make it elitist — it just means that scientists are doing their jobs. In fact, most of our theories are a result of healthy skepticism; questions about retrograde motion brought us heliocentrism, blackbody radiation brought us quantum theory, trying to reconcile EMF theory and Newtonian mechanics brought us relativity, observations about diseases brought us germ theory, the list goes on. The beauty of science isn't that we can come up with nice-sounding ideas about how the world works, because in reality the details are usually horribly complex and can take centuries to work out. The beauty is that our best ideas are all consistent with each other, and can be used to make predictions and draw conclusions about the world, improve human lives, and provide a framework to ask new questions and test new ideas. It's a beautiful process, frankly one of the best things a human being can be part of, and if you can't see this beauty I honestly feel sad for you.

A nicely written post.

The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.

you are ignorant not inquisitive. if you were seeking the facts you would be more than an arm chair scientist.
calling yourself skeptical isnt even entirely accurate, you just dont have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

That is not my opinion that's is what you are.

There is a difference between a fact and opinion.

Perhaps this is your whole issue. You display a lot of opinion and no facts.

Quote from: Manarq on February 22, 2013, 03:17:32 AM

A nicely written post.

The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.

I wouldn't put it quite like that.

You're right.  It's to be edited to add the following:

Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none.  Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies.  Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps.  One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier.  Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments (*edit- until he gets access to said building I suppose), that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist.  They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 22, 2013, 12:54:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 22, 2013, 03:28:24 AM

Quote from: Manarq on February 22, 2013, 03:17:32 AM

A nicely written post.

The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.

I wouldn't put it quite like that.

You're right.  It's to be edited to add the following:

Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none.  Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies.  Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps.  One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier.  Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments, that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist.  They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.

Or.
There could be stairs and I do actually know that there are floors above and I want to check them out.As I try to walk up the stairs, I am stopped and told that I have to stay in the lobby, upstairs is out of bounds to me.
What could they be hiding?

I'm curious who is stopping you from learning what is on the floors in this metaphor?

Just ignorance.

(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.

(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.

Scepti is one of the most eminent minds of this century. How.dare you demand his deposition, he's never even heard of you.

Quote from: Manarq on February 22, 2013, 03:16:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 22, 2013, 01:01:11 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 22, 2013, 12:54:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 22, 2013, 03:28:24 AM

Quote from: Manarq on February 22, 2013, 03:17:32 AM

A nicely written post.

The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.

I wouldn't put it quite like that.

You're right.  It's to be edited to add the following:

Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none.  Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies.  Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps.  One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier.  Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments, that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist.  They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.

Or.
There could be stairs and I do actually know that there are floors above and I want to check them out.As I try to walk up the stairs, I am stopped and told that I have to stay in the lobby, upstairs is out of bounds to me.
What could they be hiding?

I'm curious who is stopping you from learning what is on the floors in this metaphor?

Good question.
It all depends on who is allowed access to whatever is being hidden. I mean, none of us get to see what's behind the scenes of a lot of stuff for top secret reasons, so it leaves us only two choices.
Accept what's told or question the validity of what's been told.

Seriously, what kind of stuff? Science is pretty open-source and well-documented.

(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.

My keyboard is bad, my ass .... blah blah blah. If this is all you have to say, it's better to keep your mouth shut. Very few people in here doubt his knowledge of the physical laws and their impact on the earth. Well, some of them may be homemade, however we spotted that they work in practice. He shows us that it works again and again, using illustrations and pictorial evidence of high class. And what do you have? A broken keybord and a blah blah blah?

pretending to support septic is the new cool club is it?

Quote from: robertotrevor on February 22, 2013, 04:35:18 PM

(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.

My keyboard is bad, my ass .... blah blah blah. If this is all you have to say, it's better to keep your mouth shut. Very few people in here doubt his knowledge of the physical laws and their impact on the earth. Well, some of them may be homemade, however we spotted that they work in practice. He shows us that it works again and again, using illustrations and pictorial evidence of high class. And what do you have? A broken keybord and a blah blah blah?

I don't know whether to laugh or barf

Sceptic I have to ask you one question from your previous rant. What do you think a hydrogen stack is?

Quote from: Idreyn on February 22, 2013, 06:46:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 22, 2013, 04:33:21 PM

Quote from: Manarq on February 22, 2013, 03:16:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 22, 2013, 01:01:11 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 22, 2013, 12:54:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 22, 2013, 03:28:24 AM

Quote from: Manarq on February 22, 2013, 03:17:32 AM

A nicely written post.

The way I think of Sceptimatics view of science is:
Imagine a person walks into a tall building, get's in the express elevator and goes straight to the top floor. He finds himself stood on top of a tall building looking down at the ground. He knows the foundations are there as he came in through the lobby and he knows he's 100ft up and can see there's something between him and the ground but he didn't see any of the intervening floors on his journey so doesn't believe they exist. The structure is obviously there but he has no interest in using the stairs to find out what each subsequent floor is standing on.

I wouldn't put it quite like that.

You're right.  It's to be edited to add the following:

Using the stairs would be impossible, as there are none.  Scepti didn't see them on the way in, and taking the word of some building engineer-magician's hobnobbery that there are stairs inside from the top to bottom is out of the question, because engineers use math, and science uses math, therefore it's all lies.  Scepti would have to see these stairs for himself, but if a person attempted to count them in his head as he ascended them, he would likely lose track, therefore no one can count that high, therefore there can't possibly be that many steps.  One would also be overcome by the invisible force in the atmosphere that increases the more steps you climb, making you heavier.  Also, Scepti doesn't do experiments, that's the job of whoever is trying to tell him the stairs do in fact, exist.  They need to climb the stairs, film it, and post it un-cut (from the outside, walking inside, everything to prove it's not a stage set or CGI) on youtube in accordance with Scepti's strict guidelines for approval.

Or.
There could be stairs and I do actually know that there are floors above and I want to check them out.As I try to walk up the stairs, I am stopped and told that I have to stay in the lobby, upstairs is out of bounds to me.
What could they be hiding?

I'm curious who is stopping you from learning what is on the floors in this metaphor?

Good question.
It all depends on who is allowed access to whatever is being hidden. I mean, none of us get to see what's behind the scenes of a lot of stuff for top secret reasons, so it leaves us only two choices.
Accept what's told or question the validity of what's been told.

Seriously, what kind of stuff? Science is pretty open-source and well-documented.

Well I'm not talking about general science am I. I'm talking about the stuff that they tell you about, as in Nuclear bombs can do this and that, yet the only thing anyone will ever do to even sample seeing a small Nuke going off, is if it's on video.
The same with Nuclear power. Of course, anyone who reads up on it, knows the concept and how it boils water into steam by Uranium fissioning inside a big cylindrical kettle, sort of, yet it's super safe as long as it's looked after, unless a problem occurs and it goes super critical and boils off the water, making the rods melt down into a big super hot mass blob that burns through the casings of the reactor and housing, into the earth and carries on.

Sounds scary right?
Nobody questions why a mass blob of molten uranium should be fissioning still. Why?
Because we aren't Nuclear scientists, so we don't know do we?
You aren't allowed to use logic, because you need a certificate and a few letters after your name.

I mean...do submarines have a spent fuel pool on them?, do they have a 40 foot fuel pool or even a 10 foot one, where they store all their spent fuel?
If not, then how do they manage to get the spent fuel rods out of the reactor deep inside the hull?

How do they account for the hydrogen build up that Nuclear power stations are said to suffer from and is a danger, yet Nuclear power stations supposedly use hydrogen stacks for this problem.

What do submarines use, because I don't see any hydrogen stacks on them..or does the periscope act as a relief.

Is it possible that these hydrogen stacks are indeed hydrogen stacks for real, to vent hydrogen that the plants burn?
Is it possible?

Maybe the Nuclear power is really Hydrogen taken from the sea and is an abundant, limitless energy source, disguised as Nuclear, so nobody dare to check it out.
Maybe the spent fuel pools are dump loads for excess electricity that does not get used, because creating electricity and keeping up with demand is only one part.
The other part is if demand drops, like through the night, they need to siphon off the excess , so what better way than to use massive elements to heat the water pools whilst circulating cold water through them so they don't boil.

I question stuff because some things appear too good to be true. Whether they are or not, I honestly don't know, yet I can have a theory on it.

Thaggy:
 From what they say, I think they say that the hydrogen stack is sort of a safety stack to vent off any build up of Hydrogen from the fissioning process.

can you show me a picture of a hydrogen stack please

Quote from: robertotrevor on February 22, 2013, 04:35:18 PM

(my keyboard is bad. i replaced comas with points) Guys scepti is just trying to fool everyone including himself by saying he is a skeptic asking questions blah blah blah. He is just too dumb to understand a lot of stuff and also to see his own dumbness (the second being the real problem rather than the first). so he is angry because he thinks "they" (scientists. which are basically just a closed group of people deciding what is true. based on nothing really) have been lying to him all his life. Because he doesnt understand something. he thinks none really does. everyone is just repeating what we have been told. Then he comes here saying he is asking questions looking for answers. but never accepts any. He is just a denier. the more you try to teach him. the more he denies it.

Then don't teach me. 

Thats excactly what im saying. And if you read carefully you will see that not only am I not trying to teach you anything. but my post wasnt even for you.

can i have link to the conspiracy website you got this picture from pleas.

can i have link to the conspiracy website you got this picture from pleas.

No.

fair enought then we will disregard your photo. so the origional question stands. show me a picture of a hydrogen stack.

what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?

what have you got to hide by not showing me the source of your photo. all i want to do is find out why they think those towers are hydrogen release valves. i can find no reference any where on the internet to anything called a hydrogen stack at a nuclear powerstation. maby you caould show me another photo from another stations as of a hydrogen stack while you are at it?

Look it up Thaggy. I'm not that interested in what they say they are anyway.

lol what a fool. wont even give me a link to his suposed evidence.

well let me explain something to you. you keep on saying things like

"How do they account for the hydrogen build up that Nuclear power stations are said to suffer from "

well they dont. why did you think they do?    in disasters like fukushima they do but under normal operations hydrogen is not created in any meaning full quantity. so what the WTF are you on about?

i would gues that you have absolutly no idea how a nuclear power station works whcih is once again why you refuse to admit they exist. poor you ikea flat packs must be like dark magic to you.

well 1stly let me point out to you that i said under normal operating conditions they do not create hydrogen. secondly may i point out that in your source they quite clearly say that the hydrogen build up is completly unrelated to the nuclear reactor. the hydrogen build up is in a cooling network for a generator on the non nuclear side of the cooling system. once again i repeat nothing to do with the nuclear reactor. the headline should read Hydrogen build up in cooling system. the fact its at a nuclear powerstations is irelivant

so well done sceptic. you are a fool.


Edit*
in fact hear is a quote for his statment before he delets it

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 23, 2013, 09:20:44 AM

lol what a fool. wont even give me a link to his suposed evidence.

well let me explain something to you. you keep on saying things like

"How do they account for the hydrogen build up that Nuclear power stations are said to suffer from "

well they dont. why did you think they do?    in disasters like fukushima they do but under normal operations hydrogen is not created in any meaning full quantity. so what the WTF are you on about?

i would gues that you have absolutly no idea how a nuclear power station works whcih is once again why you refuse to admit they exist. poor you ikea flat packs must be like dark magic to you.

Just Japan eh?
http://www.isssource.com/fermi-2-shuts-after-hydrogen-build-up/

I have to ask. Did you even read the article or did you jsut see the headline and think score il post that?

inexhaustable  hydrogen plants. wow once agian you invent tech thats dsnt exist with no explination to replace a tech that does and is extremly well understood. well done once again.

you do know that people dont actualy swim in reacto pools right? its just to give an example of how the water absorbs the radiation.

when will you show us the calculations that show nuclear fission not working?

and your nuclear power stations shutting down and grid problem, whats that about? more random uneducated ranting?
care to exlain? i urge you to actualy read your sources before posting them this time. i feal bad proving you wrong all the time but its just so easy.