It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Radioactivity is Good for You" Push

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I think if everyone saw Spiderman...it's obvious that there are benefits of being in touch with radioactive components, so this new regulation is in accordance with what is observed on Peter Parker.




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FyreByrd

And they are not talking about radiation from evolutionary sources but manmade sources and waste here; so don't start with that argument. We're talking about exposure to persistant artifical sources of radioactivity here.



Radiation is radiation. A gamma with a certain energy is exactly the same as any other gamma with that energy. There aren't "natural, organic" alpha particles that are better for you than "evil, artificial" ones.


Nuclear power is hardly 'clean'. The mining and refining processes are very energy intensive and produce vaste quantities of pollution. We have NO way of safely disposing of the mulitple toxic waste streams involved with nuclear power (and you cannot separate nuclear power from nuclear weapons).

Just tell me again how 'clean' an energy source nuclear is. Just how limited is your definition of 'clean'.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FyreByrd

And they are not talking about radiation from evolutionary sources but manmade sources and waste here; so don't start with that argument. We're talking about exposure to persistant artifical sources of radioactivity here.



Radiation is radiation. A gamma with a certain energy is exactly the same as any other gamma with that energy. There aren't "natural, organic" alpha particles that are better for you than "evil, artificial" ones.


Nuclear power is hardly 'clean'. The mining and refining processes are very energy intensive and produce vaste quantities of pollution. We have NO way of safely disposing of the mulitple toxic waste streams involved with nuclear power (and you cannot separate nuclear power from nuclear weapons).

Just tell me again how 'clean' an energy source nuclear is. Just how limited is your definition of 'clean'.



Nothing like a non sequitur!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

We will all have super powers shortly then? 'Cause that's how it works right?

All hail the friendly radiation!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: FyreByrd

Nuclear energy is the cleanest power source we have right now, provided it's maintained and built correctly. Fossil fuels are killing this planet.





It is far from the cleanest power source ....it is the cleanest mass producer of energy sure,but there are many cleaner sources of energy they just are not as efficient...yet...

If the time and energy was put into hydro/wind/solar energy to get them right there would be no need to burn fossil fuels and/or risk meltdowns...
edit on 11-9-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Ah but then you don't get the obscene profits......can't not make the shareholder dividend....



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
You might be onto something, same with what I obseved with Peter Griffin.
But then there is this:



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
a reply to: xuenchen

Great. Now we will get nuclear waste added to our water. You know because its good for you. And we will get charged to do it.


Reminds me of fluoride.

Exactly.
It's got electrolites.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: cooperton

UV is UV, whether from the sun or an arc light. What matters with UV is the wavelength not its origins. X-rays are a much more energetic wavelength and cause more damage. However, solar x-rays behave just the same as "artificial" ones, wavelength for wavelength.


Yes. But, for example, our skin 'tells' us when we've had enough sunlight by responding with a sunburn. Pure x-rays, or any other type of unfamiliar radiation, may only trigger a bodily response saying "stop doing being exposed to this" after its too late.

Just like synthetic fertilizer companies sell their fluorosilicic acid (waste product) to water treatment plants as a fluoride additive.... I fear that other waste-producing industries may find ways to sell their waste products in a similar manner, rather than disposing of them properly.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Yes. But, for example, our skin 'tells' us when we've had enough sunlight by responding with a sunburn.


True. But the op is claiming that "natural radiation" is ok but "artificial radiation" is not. Not that gamma or x-rays are more damaging. But that there are "good" natural gamma rays (organic, no doubt) and "bad" human-manufactured gamma rays. Which is what I've been addressing when I say radiation is radiation.

A beta particle by any other name would smell as sweet, as it were.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I prefer my radiation to be gluten free myself.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Of course, in any discussion about linear no threshold vs hormesis, there's always the Taiwanese apartment incident to deal with.

I note that it hasn't come up yet.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Never heard of that one, but it does look to support hormesis.

For anyone who wishes to check out the pdf:

LINK



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

The stats on that were eye-opening.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join