Wearable negative ION devices are radioactive - scary stuff...

originally posted by: Notoneofyou

originally posted by: panoz77
Is it bad to use my smoke detector as a codpiece?

Why would it be? I've got mine on right now.

Make sure it has fresh batteries so you can press the test button and unwittingly force everyone to stare at your crotch.

Good times. (Well, except for thigh chafing).

Lol

Good thing you don't live in government assisted housing. They press the button and then take photos of it.

Actually........

I have a real problem with this video

I am not gonna say what he was showing was somehow doctored or that it was not accurate.

what I am gonna ask is is this another case of look hard enough you will find harm that is POSSIBLE but in reality not probable or as harmful as claimed.


My science teacher told us that enough of anything is harmful and kill a mouse.. but at least with an aphrodisiac it will die with a smile on its face.

but I digress..

i remember a serious and technically factual rant that claimed coconut oil popcorn was dangerous to your health.
we heard endless claims by "scientists" that it was bad for you .
leading to the change to the crap we have now

but further looking into it found that (not an exaggeration ) you would have had to eat large (not even close to normal or abnormal if hungry) amount every day for weeks to run the risk they were claiming.
so scientific accurate but realistically not probable for most people


I am wondering if this is again one of those situations.

let me end this comment with another radioactive product that puts out some radiation and we use it daily.

its called a smoke detector

it has a radioactive element that does pose a danger (just lookup atomic boyscout) and can be shown with scientific tests.

but in reality unless you plan on cracking the case and eating it, spreading it on your body, or something equally as silly .
Or you have some rare compromised or not normal immune system that any extra radiation could cause a change.
or just plain nature just doesnt like you randomness ...
you are gonna be safe

scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger
I have a real problem with this video

I am not gonna say what he was showing was somehow doctored or that it was not accurate.

what I am gonna ask is is this another case of look hard enough you will find harm that is POSSIBLE but in reality not probable or as harmful as claimed.


My science teacher told us that enough of anything is harmful and kill a mouse.. but at least with an aphrodisiac it will die with a smile on its face.

but I digress..

i remember a serious and technically factual rant that claimed coconut oil popcorn was dangerous to your health.
we heard endless claims by "scientists" that it was bad for you .
leading to the change to the crap we have now

but further looking into it found that (not an exaggeration ) you would have had to eat large (not even close to normal or abnormal if hungry) amount every day for weeks to run the risk they were claiming.
so scientific accurate but realistically not probable for most people


I am wondering if this is again one of those situations.

let me end this comment with another radioactive product that puts out some radiation and we use it daily.

its called a smoke detector

it has a radioactive element that does pose a danger (just lookup atomic boyscout) and can be shown with scientific tests.

but in reality unless you plan on cracking the case and eating it, spreading it on your body, or something equally as silly .
Or you have some rare compromised or not normal immune system that any extra radiation could cause a change.
or just plain nature just doesnt like you randomness ...
you are gonna be safe

scrounger

But thats not what he says... you are right about the smoke alarm, those sources are very weak and the encapsulation of the smoke detecting unit itself is enough to stop the Alphas, Americium sources in smoke detectors are usually only a few Bq also, and the range of an Alpha in the air wouldn't actually make it to the edge of the device horizontally, and would definitely be stopped by the plastic of the lit, even if the source was completely unshielded.

But this example is not the same. The plastic has, embedded dust of some form, as i say, given that i double any company is handing large amounts of thorium dust as that would be classed as an open source, so it is likely powdered refinery slag. The point he was making was that some of that dust will come off and probably end up embedded in the skin or inhaled... The problem with this is that you have now a chunk of something that is a little bit more radioactive than what you would have otherwise, in or on you. For Alphas, that is the most dangerous place to be. For gammas, not so much but Betas, 50/50.

I think my only problem with his analysis is that he fails to mention that the background radiation rate around the world varies by about a factor of 1 to 2 thousand. The Cancer rate however does not, with the more radioactive places not giving an increase in cancer rates at all in most cases.

Also Geiger counters are not great at telling you exactly what your dose will be, they basically just tell you the amount of radiation unless you know what you are doing. While im not going to say he has no clue, the most accurate way to do this measurement is to basically place the object on a sensor, rather than crunching it up. Doing so messes up the acceptance difference between someone wearing the object compared to swallowing it... for example.

So id say his caution is a little over stated... BUT think of it this way... imagine someone wearing one of these every day, for years, stopping, and a year or so later, develop cancer. They would likely not associate the two things and do what many people do... blame what ever the current fad is to blame at the time. 5G for example. When really it was some stupid radioactive dust embedded in plastic.