Monday, January 2, 2012

Trolls a Sign of the Times

Demonstration of what a Troll is

Troll below took a lame pot shot

18 minutes ago(12:38 AM)
I looked at your "calculati­ons". Do you really expect to be taken seriously? You have made so many assumption­s about the dispersion of the isotopes and even their "non Chernobyl" identity that I have to laugh. You are practicing the same kind of deception you accuse nuclear advocates of....that or you don't know what you are doing.

But really you shouldn't embarrass yourself quite so badly...the document you are "laughing about" is labelled with it's source, so obviously you didn't really look.   the source is here for your convenience and embarrassment

Its from the US National library of Medicine.    Hah! What a joker your are.   Pretending that the USNLIM was actually my work, and then taking pot shot at it.   Well you didn't actual even  muster a pot shot, all you did was say you laughed.

My assumptions in my work were fairly simple, I took a rectangular box that encompassed known EPA published data points, took an independent simulation of particulate spread, then made it smaller to be conservative, and then assumed a uniform distribution within the volume.   Assumptions were clearly stated, backed up with charts and models, and conservative.

The only way that much uranium was in the EPA filters was a massive launch and aerosolization of core or fuel pool material or both.    A little temporary even 3 day fire wouldn't do it.

Contrary to what you said I did not make assumption about dispersion of various isotopes, as I simplifed and made my estimates more conservative by only using the most common isotope U-238.   

So again, just another pot shot from you.  Is that the best you can do, seriously?   If i was paying you to be a troll I would fire you. 

You could reduce my estimates by 87% AND the only logical conclusion would still be a launch of 10's of tons of uranium.  

Here is my original source material for those interested in the truth.

I have also documented your inability to actual mount an argument as an example in the blog.  


  1. found one detection so far.
    pdf's have high probability of being clean, yet cannot say for certain without "real iron" testing.
    I did get headhunted by (strange)

    https :// /details /atomicnucleus032805mbp

    added spaces to prevent reinfection, if that was one vector.



    still efforting ...

  2. We may have a "winner".
    Do bear in mind that none of this should be considered "actionable" until confirmed.
    No sense going off half-Vox'ed. :lol
    Oak's lunatic Ridge likely isn't going anywhere.

    Here's an update to the last candidate link, which only scored as a "Malicious site" on 2/61 URL Scanners:
    Quote from "Blacklisting status" --> "Quttera Labs - domain is Malicious. more info"
    That site is long on blacklists, but damn short on details. (Inconclusive)

    web site included to ensure moderation:

  3. Independant confirmation seems in order, including confirmation of as a source.
    Am i correct that the malefactory crew need not have known about the malware?
    It seems to be done in the course of posting hate, sexual harassment, etc., etc.

    Their employer ("Your tax dollars at work?") must love this shit.
    Can i eventually look forward to reading all about this on Lucas W. Hixson's blog?

    You could prolly use a full report of all ManBearPig's links.
    I could use a percentage pay raise at minimum. :P

    Cue 'da 'Ahnold, und 'da Donald to 'da tune of 'da Nylons.
    "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!" :)

    Please reply here --> <-- to indicate receipt & need for full list of links for independent analysis.