Many of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings suffered (and some died) of radiation sickness, but a single ~20k bomb contains a LOT less radioactive material than a nuclear power plant.
Yes, actual atomic bombs were used on those two cities.
Also: If atomic bombs aren't real, why do nuclear power plants work?
Is there any real evidence that nuclear fission isn't real? A LOT of scientific theory AND real-world data, "scientific" and otherwise, support the facts of nuclear fission and of actual, functioning atomic fission bombs.
Draws false equivalencies, absolutely certain of things he can't be certain about, relies on appealing to authority of "science" in place of individual thinking.
There's no "false equivalency" here: both fission bombs and nuclear power plants use fissionable material AND use the same natural process -- radioactive decay -- to generate heat. One is designed to create a runaway process that generates an explosion, the other moderates the process to PREVENT an explosion and instead uses the heat to boil water to spin a turbine to create electricity.
As far as relying on an appeal to authority -- so far, I don't have any reason to believe that's not what you're doing, because you've said nothing about where your opinion comes from. Did you read something on the internet and decide it had to be true? I'm relying on data from a number of sources, as I pointed out, ranging from university physics to historical accounts and more.
Many of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings suffered (and some died) of radiation sickness, but a single ~20k bomb contains a LOT less radioactive material than a nuclear power plant.
Yes, actual atomic bombs were used on those two cities.
How do you know? Were you high ranking military at the time? Research and development?
Did you see it with your own eyes?
Or are you believing what you've been told
I could ask you the same thing.
Also: If atomic bombs aren't real, why do nuclear power plants work?
Is there any real evidence that nuclear fission isn't real? A LOT of scientific theory AND real-world data, "scientific" and otherwise, support the facts of nuclear fission and of actual, functioning atomic fission bombs.
Draws false equivalencies, absolutely certain of things he can't be certain about, relies on appealing to authority of "science" in place of individual thinking.
NGMI
There's no "false equivalency" here: both fission bombs and nuclear power plants use fissionable material AND use the same natural process -- radioactive decay -- to generate heat. One is designed to create a runaway process that generates an explosion, the other moderates the process to PREVENT an explosion and instead uses the heat to boil water to spin a turbine to create electricity.
As far as relying on an appeal to authority -- so far, I don't have any reason to believe that's not what you're doing, because you've said nothing about where your opinion comes from. Did you read something on the internet and decide it had to be true? I'm relying on data from a number of sources, as I pointed out, ranging from university physics to historical accounts and more.