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.

 

Talking about high tech? Tritium Titanium Alloy Tail Light Cap For Blackwater SR71

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrptr
It was irradiated.


Tritium does not produce rays that can cause corrosive effects in metal. Try again.

I love, love, love when you make things up.

Ionizing radiation bombardment certainly does 'affect' anything in its decay path.




posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam


You said ANY radioactive source was deadly. Well, you're full of one. Not counting background radiation, which is always there.

There is no safe minimum dose.


Zero may be unsafe. See also: hormesis.




Sources of ionizing radioactive materials are harmful when internalized, i.e., inhaled or ingested. You're talking about external sources when you cite "background radiation", i.e., energetic particles that come from outside and pass thru you.


If it's penetrating radiation, then it's all samey same.



They are also potentially harmful but not as harmful as internal sources, especially alpha emitters that became incorporated into the bodies bone or connective tissues, sit there irradiating nearby cells.


Penetrating background radiation is just as bad. The only reason consuming alpha emitters is worse is because it wouldn't make it through your skin otherwise. Like a beta particle.



Disingenuous comparing fruit to tritium or internal sources vs. "background".


Only if you don't actually understand the why and wherefores. You eat that banana, or any other potassium, and you are consuming a beta emitter. One with a higher energy than tritium, for that matter.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrptr
It was irradiated.


Tritium does not produce rays that can cause corrosive effects in metal. Try again.

I love, love, love when you make things up.

Ionizing radiation bombardment certainly does 'affect' anything in its decay path.



However, betas won't make it out of the glass. Try again.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


Zero may be unsafe. See also: hormesis.

Now its zero emissions. Your redoubts are vanishing.

Been fun, gotta go...



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Ionizing radiation bombardment certainly does 'affect' anything in its decay path.


So, tell me Professor, how did the tritium bombard the threads if it was screwed into the barrel?

Please use your vast knowledge of nuclear physics to illuminate this for us.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bedlam


Zero may be unsafe. See also: hormesis.

Now its zero emissions. Your redoubts are vanishing.

Been fun, gotta go...


Didn't read the first sentence, I see. Ta!

eta: Let's excerpt the first few sentences. Pretty easy to read:



The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9–20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced—to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced—to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public.


In simple words, linear no-threshold, or "any at all is eeeeevil" is bull#. As proved by real data.
edit on 29-12-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So you found a beat up front sight.

And you're handling something you say was so radioactive that it melted or eroded this sight.

If it were that radioactive you would not be handling it with your hands at all. Let alone bare-handing it.

I still say you're a liar. Nothing you've said is factual and you keep pushing it.
edit on 29 12 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
...
Note: Not the most interesting post... but i had a laugh!


Do not sell yourself short! One star, no flags, and four five pages!! I think that is a pretty good accomplishment!


edit on 29-12-2016 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: one day I will learn to count



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Haha tnx! That must be a record ; )



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health.

Ionizing radiation "may be beneficial to human health".

I know you love to leave little falsehoods for ignorant peoples benefit, but this is getting ridiculous.

Tiny, speed of light, sub atomic particles are destructive, period.

Chronic low dose exposure over time runs down the immune system. Especially from sources internalized to the body .

Try again.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


So you found a beat up front sight.

That front sight used to have a glass vial filled with tritium. Its 'older' (berfore your time doesn't mean its not relevant to this conversation), reflecting what happens to radioactive elements containment over time. In the case of glass vials, they decay and release their contents.

You're right, the guy shouldn't be handling it directly.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Data's hard on belief, innit?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The overall condition of the sight pin tells you that it was roughly handled and not maintained. Tritium's not corrosive.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: intrptr

The overall condition of the sight pin tells you that it was roughly handled and not maintained. Tritium's not corrosive.

Dude, the glass vial is Gone... It is an example of the ones I was talking about, exactly as they appeared, back when I saw them at a gun show in the 80's in Pomona. Some were jellied goo, some had deteriorated completely, they were all still new in the wrap, bought as part of a lot from a military base auction. I saw them with my own MK1 eyeballs.

Obviously its play time. We don bleeb what dude sayin because we don' wan to.

Whatever, Meh...

I'm going to go ingest some radioactive gunsights.

TIL on ATS they safe as mommies breast milk.

edit on 30-12-2016 by intrptr because: BB code



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Dude, the glass vial is Gone...


It's not like I'm making this stuff up. A radioactive isotope is chemically identical to a non-radioactive isotope of the same element. Deuterium and tritium will react chemically exactly like hydrogen. No more, no less. They form the same compounds. You get tiny little differences in reaction rates for some isotopes, but it's marginally different.

And 6keV betas don't cause material degradation.

Ever used an oscilloscope?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


It's not like I'm making this stuff up

Neither am i.

Yu asked for evidence, and I found a museum pic of one... EOS.

You do see the label on the photograph "Tritium sight"?

Heres another one "original" and "notched" , "tritium vial not included". Sorry as sold out as some peoples brains seem to be...

gunpartscorp



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Yu asked for evidence, and I found a museum pic of one... EOS.



And that thing's boogered up from one end to another. Betas aren't penetrating. So how are you accounting for the same corrosion all over? EOS.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr
Yu asked for evidence, and I found a museum pic of one... EOS.



And that thing's boogered up from one end to another. Betas aren't penetrating. So how are you accounting for the same corrosion all over? EOS.


None of the glass vials containing tritium that were manufactured for those early sights are 'available' because they all dissolved because they were radioactive ...

geez, read between the lines.

Oh thats right, rads are 'beneficial'.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

None of the glass vials containing tritium that were manufactured for those early sights are 'available' because they all dissolved because they were radioactive ...


Or, for other reasons that might actually make sense. Things don't dissolve because of 6keV betas.

Ever use an oscope? Have a CRT TV? The electrons whacking into the faceplates, did they dissolve the CRTs? No? Same thing, only the electrons in the CRTs had more energy than the ones coming out of the tritium.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

"It can't happen", lulz

Tell it to the manufacturer, not me.

Or find even one of those tritium vials intact for the early night sights from the 80's, either or.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join