it makes no difference - none at all, completely irrelevant - to my argument. You are the one pivoting your shit on technical definitions of words like "major" and "minor".
Bogus nonsense. Your argument is one of semantics and pedantism therefore the precise context and usage of these words absolutely matters. You just don't like it, because when one considers the precise usage of these words in the common, professional, and cultural context of the situation, your argument falls flat on its face.
You go off and deal with translation issues between the Japanese and world media, if they matter to you, but leave me out of it.
Awww, now that you've been spoonfed you've had a change of heart. How cute.
Stick to quoting. I don't know what you mean by "it", I suspect you of more slippery and dishonest language (as when you claimed I denied plutonium's natural existence), and the point involved is critical.
As I have said before, you can't even retain context across a single post. Thankyou for so aptly demonstrating this once again.
The difference between "does" and "can be expected to" is key here. You merge them, and you miss that key point - once again.
This is bogus, and simply reflects your lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved in soil genesis, and the arguments that I've presented to you. There's another possible reason for the use of 'Can be expected to' that you obviously haven't figured out yet that renders your statement nonsensical.
My claim (a very minor intro to an observation and point) was that plutonium is not found in soil under normal environmental conditions - as a physical fact of the planet earth. That was a grandiose overstatement - (far more than I needed for my argument, and not the argument itself, which you have never addressed) - but it's holding up surprisingly well.
Right, so you aknowledge my point then. It was a Grandiose overstatement.
You have been unable to discover even single, small, irrelevant, symbolic counterexamples.
This is just bullshit, and you know it.
At this point, you're argument relies on the assertions that "Elements found in bedrock do not, can not, and will not leach into overlying soils" and "Elements contained in mineral deposits within soils do not, can not, and will not leach into soils".
As yet another example of how your assertion is generally bogus, tell me, are you familiar with the primary objection to mining heavy mineral sands?
And if you ever do, I will simply and cheerfully specify them, and admit however many rare and irrelevant exceptions there may be to that grandiose overstatement. I don't give a flying fuck whether there are traces of natural soil plutonium in the floodplain downstream of a uranium deposit somewhere in Africa, and nothing in my arguments here rests on their absence.
Yeah it does, and I didn't say anything about floodplains in Africa.
Why are you beating this irrelevancy to death, and ignoring the argument?
You're the one that bought the inaccurate grandiose overstatement back into the conversation. I've already mentioned what I would be willing to accept as an accurate rephrasing.
So? More support for my argument - I claim TEPCO is counting on that public "conception".
BUllshit, because it's not the same thing as asserting that it's safe.
Besides which, you're still missing the point that the statement boils down to "3 of the 5 samples have nothing to do with the recent events, and the other two samples have concentrations that are in the range found elsewhere in the soil as a result of atmospheric testing during the cold war".
Incidentally, this is where considering the original Japanese text has proved illuminating, there's a couple of phrases, which don't appear in any of the english translations. Basically, from my limited ability to understand such things, the phrasing seems a lot more explicit in the Japanese versions than it is in any of the english translations I've seen. The more I look at the Japanese text and the range of possible translations (for example, there's 8 different ways of writing normal, depending on its usage - or, perhaps more correctly, there's 8 different ways of translating Normal into Japanese).
The long and the short of it is that the phrase "通常の環境" can also (AFAIK anyway) be translated as "Normal circumstances" "Under normal circumstances" or "Normal environment" but is specifically and explicitly placed in the contest of the fallout Japan has experienced from atmospheric nuclear testing.
Frankly your lack of curiosity amazes, amuses, and apalls me. On the one side you seem hell bent on asserting that TEPCO is unreliable, and concealing stuff, and yet on the other hand you seem to be asserting that we should rely on their translators to form our opinions.
So... TEPCO is inept and deceitful, but the translators they employ to appease the western media aren't?
Addendum - there are other limitations as well that are specific to Japanese language, that don't apply in English - for example, press releases are limited to about 2000 of the 40,000 kanji available (including historical references).
Your cessation of this garbage is long overdue.
Something about sauce, geese, and ganders.
Don't forget:
1. You started it.
2. I have made several quite reasonable posts, giving you the opportunity to resume a rational, apolitcal discourse, to which you have responded with inane accusations.
You can dish it, but, apparently, you can't take it.
