Start stocking Up on water and Canned food guys...

a reply to: diggindirt

My friends at the department were saying that the EPA was transferring costs from their (the EPA's)budget to state budgets by turning over certain phases to the state-

Well, I read the modifications because of the other claims made about them. Maybe I missed that part.

I really think you guys stock food and water, i never believe in conspiracy theories. No ghosts, no aliens, im secular, no god, no angels, no chemtrails.

Just stock the *SNIP* out of food and water. I think its gonna be a freaking bumpy ride, could be wrong tho.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: intrptr

Just curious about a couple of things you said. Could you please clarify the meaning of subatomic radioactive elements?
And also could you clarify the effective lethality of one atom of Plutonium?
Thanks in advance.

Fission (the splitting of atoms) produces nuclides. These retain properties of the original atom with different energy states, Thats a real short answer, I'll get back to you later today with more on that.

a reply to: intrptr

Ah, radionuclides. Duh. For some reason my mind didn't want to dredge this fact up when I read your post. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to the rest of your response.

a reply to: pfishy

Just curious about a couple of things you said. Could you please clarify the meaning of subatomic radioactive elements?
And also could you clarify the effective lethality of one atom of Plutonium?
Thanks in advance.

Sorry yah, radionuclides, thats the proper term. These radioactive elements have the same properties of say, cesium (used in bone structure, but are radioactive, emitting dangerous radiation. Dangerous to nearby cells in the form of alpha and gamma rays. Alpha emitters (like Plutonium) are the most dangerous as evidenced by in this photo and description from a book about it, Working in the Fields of the Bomb…



Source

a reply to: intrptr

You are absolutely correct about alpha particle radiation inside the body. Though outside the body, it is the least dangerous. And even barring the radioactivity, Plutonium is an extremely toxic heavy metal by itself.
It is, however, still a matter of dosage. You can ingest a certain amount of Plutonium with no ill effect. There are radioactive atoms inside your body right now, from naturally occurring sources, which were present in mankind since we first evolved.
All in minute quantities, but present nonetheless.

I'm not saying there's no danger from Fukushima. I'm just pointing out that the danger posed by radioactive substances is still a matter of scale.

a reply to: pfishy

So lets say you eat something, like an apple? Does this happen?

a reply to: yulka

By 'this', are you referring to the ingestion of radioactive materials?

Here's a link to a Wiki article about the elemental composition of the average person. Look at the trace elements chart.
wiki

a reply to: pfishy

If you buy the apple from where some rain from Fukushima fell, will the picture above happen?
Yes on the radioactive, does iodine in salt helP?

a reply to: yulka

Iodine salt is only useful to protect the thyroid gland from absorbing Iodine-131, a radioactive isotope of iodine present mainly in nuclear fallout.
The picture you are asking about is an image of a particle of Plutonium in lung tissue. I don't know that there is any issue with airborne plutonium contamination being spread by rain, but it would not become trapped in the lungs if it were present in the apple. It would be in the GI tract, and would have a harder time building up in that concentration because the esophagus, stomach and intestine are very efficient at moving things through themselves.
That's not to say the body would not absorb some. But the picture states that it is a 'particle' of Plutonium. It does not give either the mass or the activity of the particle.

a reply to: pfishy

thank you

a reply to: yulka

Very welcome. My whole point to what I've been saying is that we are all exposed to radiation on a daily basis. It's a matter of quantity.
I'd be willing to bet that you are never more than 50 to 75 feet from a radioactive isotope anywhere in your own home. And an alpha particle admitter at that. But it is not a source of danger because it is the level of activity that matters, not the mere presence of it.

a reply to: pfishy

Plutonium is an extremely toxic heavy metal by itself.
It is, however, still a matter of dosage. You can ingest a certain amount of Plutonium with no ill effect.

No ill effect? How'd you determine that? That pic sort of went right past your cognizance, did it?
No ill effect. If it were possible to divide a pound of plutonium amongst the worlds population everyone would die of cancer. PU is just one element released at Fuku, hundreds of tons of reactor fuel rods were melted there, highly radioactive material is dispersing into the environment ongoing.

You talk as though this has happened before, "no ill effect", lol.

a reply to: pfishy

I'm just pointing out that the danger posed by radioactive substances is still a matter of scale.

There is no minimum safe dose. Cancer from a single hit by a gamma ray is possible. Form space, earth sources, yah, but none as potentially damaging as fission by products. Why do you think a dirty bomb scares officials so much?

The worst case scenario. FUKU is three melted dirty bombs pouring residue into the ocean.

a reply to: intrptr

I was referencing your earlier statement about one atom of Plutonium.
And again, there is absolutely no information given about the quantity of Plutonium in the particle in that picture. Either by mass or by activity level.
Is it 1 Becquerel, 1 miligram, 1 Curie?
These things matter.
So, not to be rude, but please don't judge what does and doesn't escape my cognizance. The question of quantity I asked earlier was in direct response to the picture.
I have actually worked with radioactive materials before. Thorium, Californium, Americium, Cesium 137, Uranium and Plutonium. Knowing about the potential hazards of these materials was an absolute requirement of the job.

Edit: I forgot Cobalt 60

a reply to: intrptr

And dirty bombs aren't necessarily composed of fission products.
Also, cancer is also possible from one single UV photon. The odds of it occurring, just like from one single gamma photon, are almost beyond astronomical though. Given that pretty much anything is technically possible, you can always structure the type of argument you're making like that. But probability and possibility are very dissimilar when talking about odds like these.

Now, before you ask, I absolutely think that Fukushima is an unmitigated disaster, and will certainly have long-term consequences for the entire planet. The only point I'm trying to make is that I believe your understanding of the actual effects of radiation at extremely small doses is inaccurate.

a reply to: intrptr

Oh, and one last point. The radiation poisoning is much more likely to kill you with Plutonium, or the heavy metal toxicity, before the cancer ever has a chance to develop.

a reply to: pfishy

Also, cancer is also possible from one single UV photon. The odds of it occurring, just like from one single gamma photon, are almost beyond astronomical though.

Near or far UV radiation?

If ionizing, the difference being the source of your "single UV photon" is external and a single event, while contamination in the environment is emitting as a source. Typically, ionizing radiation from earth sources or space is measured as "background" and external to our physical bodies. These sources are not laying around for us to breathe, drink or eat. Bio accumulation of these "minerals" into higher life forms concentrates them.

A source ingested is a mini X-ray machine that can't be turned off. The body assimilates certain elements without regard to radioactivity. Like cesium in bones, for instance.

The term Particle is used to convey meaning to laypersons. Anything with mass.

Plutonium is also a gamma emitter.

You "used to" work with radioactive elements. Ever had a full body scan with scintillators? Alpha emitters don't show on average radiation detection equipment.

a reply to: pfishy

Oh, and one last point. The radiation poisoning is much more likely to kill you with Plutonium, or the heavy metal toxicity, before the cancer ever has a chance to develop.

When the hospital in Hiroshima was finally reopened, they went to the basement to recover X-ray film for use. It was all exposed where it lay. That was from the burst of radiation, not fallout.

So two kinds of radiation are emitted. One, like any sun and the fallout later, in the form of fission by products.Same with fuel rods that have been exposed ins a reactor. Highly radioactive, close proximity is lethal. Because of ionizing radiation.

Getting an X-ray is one event. It ends, same with an airplane flight, you land. The exposure stops. the machine is turned off.

Any ionizing radiation that passes through you from an external source is gone. Poisining from radiation is an innocuous term, it refers to a dose an exposure, from rays from sources either in or outside the body.

In the case of the sun the source is far away, an X-ray machine, it is turned on and off. The minute particle sources in the environment and ingested into us from eating fish or seaweed say, or breathing dust ad drinking "contaminated" water are little sources down here on Earth loosed into the environment where there particular half life will guarantee ongoing exposure, "poisoning" our bodies with decay events that causes damage to our cells, from inside.

I gotta go, kind of stuck here, trying to educate sort of in denial person about it.

Heres a good read…

radiation guide, effects