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
It was a partial meltdown. It wasn’t a full meltdown. It was an event like Chernobyl.
Removed by mod
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 ?
Removed by mod
The government document list it as a partial meltdown. That’s the official term being used.
I didn’t use an ad hominem. You seem to struggle with words. I used the term the government used and try to use it as an attack towards me. You now can’t stay on topic and can’t focus on the touch.
Do you disagree that three Mile was a success?
Removed by mod
Partial meltdown. It’s in the cite I supplied.
I haven’t lost my temper. I’m just baffled by your behavior.
I’ll ask for at least the third time.
Do you see three Mile island as a success of the safety of our nuclear power ?
Removed by mod
Warning: Rule 3
Pre-emptively characterizing future responses as sexual harassment is textbook bad faith.
Also, you both should’ve stopped a long time ago. Or, if you insisted on continuing, should’ve clarified the terms of discussion, which clearly revolved around what “meltdown” meant.
You’re acting in bad faith and trolling again. You refuse to stay on topic and want to circle jerking some imaginary victory instead of having a discussion.
You refuse to answer the question and instead what troll. Have a good day.