I wouldn't be so generous as to call your initial comment a point. More like an antagonistic expression of wilful ignorance.
That you would assert that the only people who need to be concerned with radiation are people 'living in a containment vessel' is simply absurd.
All you're doing now is applying the industry's standard response to rational concerns over a disastrous reactor incident: paint public concern as ignorant 'hysteria', engage in a bit of character assassination ("I'm surprised you have the courage to get out of bed in the morning"), and gloss over the seriousness of the situation, and impacts ("it's only 20 km").
Your stance also clearly indicates you've read little on the impact on the ground in Fukushima over the last year. I don't think there's much to be gained from discussing this issue with you, as at any point you'll be arguing with a concocted mental model of an opponent who is 'hysterical' and 'ignorant', and bring only arrogance and snark to the table. Boring.
That you would assert that the only people who need to be concerned with radiation are people 'living in a containment vessel' is simply absurd.
All you're doing now is applying the industry's standard response to rational concerns over a disastrous reactor incident: paint public concern as ignorant 'hysteria', engage in a bit of character assassination ("I'm surprised you have the courage to get out of bed in the morning"), and gloss over the seriousness of the situation, and impacts ("it's only 20 km").
Your stance also clearly indicates you've read little on the impact on the ground in Fukushima over the last year. I don't think there's much to be gained from discussing this issue with you, as at any point you'll be arguing with a concocted mental model of an opponent who is 'hysterical' and 'ignorant', and bring only arrogance and snark to the table. Boring.