Interesting times we live in.
Written article: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-invokes-sovereignty-act-over-federal-clean-electricity-regulations/ar-AA1kCO70
Interesting times we live in.
Written article: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-invokes-sovereignty-act-over-federal-clean-electricity-regulations/ar-AA1kCO70
Partial meltdown. Proof of the safety of the design.
So a meltdown then?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island
No deaths. No injuries. No damage to the environment.
It shows the safety of nuclear power.
Yes it safely melted down.
and?
To quote you from earlier:
I am merely asking that you admit you were incorrect in that statement and retract it.
This is like talking to a politician, you are incapable of admitting wrongdoing, it’s very difficult to get you to talk honestly about these things.
To further quote someone I spoke to earlier “You use such weird language when you write. Have you ever thought about writing like an adult?”
It was a partial meltdown. It wasn’t a full meltdown. It was an event like Chernobyl.
So it was a meltdown then, regardless of the qualifiers you are putting in there to save face? Thank you.
In future, please try to leave your ego at the door when talking about statements of fact.
Thanks for at least somewhat reluctantly admitting that you were wrong, even if it took far too long and you couldn’t do it without trying to save face by arguing unimportant details.
This is progress! Well done.
Most people when they talk about meltdowns are talking about nuclear disasters and full meltdowns. They’re not taking about a partial meltdown.
You seem to struggle with words and the meanings of them. You’re so focused on being “right” that you just look foolish.
Do you disagree that three mile island is a success of our nuclear program? Or you just going to circle jerk in the corner for no apparent reason ?