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.

 

Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 24
12
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jfj123
 


I never said it was inacurate. But, I've used soil density gauges before (I'm actually troxler certified and have taken courses in radiation safety).

www.viinstruments.co.za...

They are made with americium.

The NRC regulates them as to who can own one and who can opperate one.

Now, if smoke detectors have the same element in them, why is the NRC not involved? Or when a smoke detector gets stolen, why not a big fuss about it?


Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, announced today that one radioactive gauge is missing from a job site in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The gauge may pose a health risk to persons if handled or carried for an extended period of time. The missing gauge is in a yellow plastic transport case and weighs approximately 90 pounds.


www.nrc.gov...

That's all I'm saying.


Well I don't know why there isn't a big fuss and I do not know what the regs are for them. I do however remember selling them back in the late 80's when I worked for K-Mart Corp.
We had a few requirements regarding storing them.
1. We could only store 4 or less shipping boxes together.
2. We could not store near food or near where people would be working on a regular basis.
3. We could not store them close to electronic devices.

Aside from that, there were no regulations I was made aware of.




posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If you think the information I posted is inaccurate, please show me. So far thats the best info I could find.


If there was a simple explanation for the radiation why would the EPL lie and state it was DU from the planes.


Don't know. Did you ask them why they lied?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Don't know. Did you ask them why they lied?


I have e-mails out. Its hard getting answers from anyone though due to the 9/11 lawsuits.

[edit on 9-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well I don't know why there isn't a big fuss and I do not know what the regs are for them. I do however remember selling them back in the late 80's when I worked for K-Mart Corp.
We had a few requirements regarding storing them.
1. We could only store 4 or less shipping boxes together.
2. We could not store near food or near where people would be working on a regular basis.
3. We could not store them close to electronic devices.

Aside from that, there were no regulations I was made aware of.


This actually doesn't make sense as far as radiation goes. I'm sorry to say. Radiation is a partical that is emitted from the source. Say it be x-rays, gamma rays, alpha rays, beta rays etc. All these different types of rays act in different ways. Off the top of my head, I think gamma are the bad ones. I could be wrong. Storing a radiation source next to food or electrical devices would not have any affect on either. Food nor electrical equipment will not store the radiation or keep it. Again. Some education on the subject might be in order. And again, I'm not slighting you because there are many areas where I am not educated in.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have e-mails out. Its hard getting answers from anyone though due to the 9/11 lawsuits.


Or Homeland Security.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
message erased

[edit on 9-11-2007 by PepeLapew]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Or Homeland Security.


I sent an e-mail to a construction company that was at ground zero asking some questions, they wrote back saying they could not answer due to the lawsuits.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Well I don't know why there isn't a big fuss and I do not know what the regs are for them. I do however remember selling them back in the late 80's when I worked for K-Mart Corp.
We had a few requirements regarding storing them.
1. We could only store 4 or less shipping boxes together.
2. We could not store near food or near where people would be working on a regular basis.
3. We could not store them close to electronic devices.

Aside from that, there were no regulations I was made aware of.


This actually doesn't make sense as far as radiation goes. I'm sorry to say. Radiation is a partical that is emitted from the source. Say it be x-rays, gamma rays, alpha rays, beta rays etc. All these different types of rays act in different ways. Off the top of my head, I think gamma are the bad ones. I could be wrong. Storing a radiation source next to food or electrical devices would not have any affect on either. Food nor electrical equipment will not store the radiation or keep it. Again. Some education on the subject might be in order. And again, I'm not slighting you because there are many areas where I am not educated in.


Telling me I should be more educated about the subject is completely irrelevant here. Notice I made no claims as to whether K-marts storage policy was right or wrong? I am just stating what the policy is. Also, if you look back a few posts, I posted very specific information about ionized smoke detectors. Now I'm not slighting you for you not reading things completely as there are many posts but I do recommend re-reading several of mine to get a bit more info.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Please, what exactly do smoke detectors have to do with 9-11? Is there a concise answer to this question, fitting into one or two sentences?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Please, what exactly do smoke detectors have to do with 9-11? Is there a concise answer to this question, fitting into one or two sentences?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


Somebody said there was radiation detected at WTC ground zero.
In response, people have suggested that radiation may have come from common sources after the collapse (exit signs, smoke detectors, radon release, etc.)

I would greatly appreciate it if you would now answer the questions which I have previously posed to you
Thanks.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Now I'm not slighting you for you not reading things completely as there are many posts but I do recommend re-reading several of mine to get a bit more info.


I didn't mean to offend you at all. Sorry if I did. You could be right because I came into this discussion about 4 pages ago.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



The claim that the elevated radiation levels at GZ were caused by smoke detetors, exit signs, wrist watches etc. There's one.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Just so everyone understands what he's talking about concerning smoke detectors, they contain americium-241. It has a half-life of 432 years and it doesn't take a great deal to cause big problems to a lot of people.

I would think there were quite a few smoke detectors involved in 200+ floors of buildings.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I would think there were quite a few smoke detectors involved in 200+ floors of buildings.


But again, if there was a simple explanation for the radiation why would the EPA state that the radiation was casued by Depleted Uranium from the planes. The 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Also why would the EPA state the area was safe if they knew about radiation ?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Why would they say the area was safe period? Don't even have to add radioactivity into the mix to wonder that. We've got first responders with chronic lung conditions.

Can you link me where the EPA made the statement about DU from the planes? (Sorry, I'm sure this is some where back in the 23 pages of this thread, but I haven't been following.)



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
and it appears that DU is used as counterweighting on commercial airliners.

www.americanfreepress.net...

Who would've thunk.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
and it appears that DU is used as counterweighting on commercial airliners.


But Boeing stopped using DU with the 747s. The 757 and 767 use Tungsten for counterweights.

E-mail stating radiation at ground zero and Pentagon. EPA stated it was DU from the planes.

www.xs4all.nl...

On Sept. 11, I called a medical doctor who lives 7 miles from the Pentagon and warned her that DU could have burned in the hijacked jets that crashed (up to 3000 pounds were used in 747's). She turned on her gamma meter - radiation levels were 8 times higher than normal inside her house. She informed the Nuclear Information Resource Service in Washington DC[Phone: 202-328-0002], and the EPA, FBI, HazMat and other emergency response agencies went to the Pentagon to investigate.
A pile of rubble from the crash was radioactive, but the EPA rep said "oh... it's probably depleted uranium... it's not a health hazard unless you breathe it". Firefighters, Pentagon personnel, and communities nearby DID BREATHE IT. There was no follow-up investigation, and what about the World Trade Center in NY? Radiation almost never gets into the media. It is a taboo subject.

From: "Dr. H. D. Sharma"
[Physicist]
It does not matter whether the planes that hit the World-Trade Towers and the Pentagon have DU or not as long as DU does not catch fire. If DU catches fire -- most likely it will just like in the case of the El-Al plane that caught fire outside Amsterdam (Netherland), it will form aerosols of uranium dioxide. Inhalation of the aerosols can be harmful to human health depending on the quantity inhaled.
The presence of aerosols can be checked with the help of a simple radiation survey meter. Such meters are readily available and the site near the Towers should be checked for gamma-ray emitters as soon as possible. If you do not see any radiation from adioisotopes of thorium-234 and protoactinium-234, you are fairly certain that no DU has become airborne and it is unlikely to be harmful to human health.
Hari Sharma.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Okay, well that's a bit different than what you represented. They made a statement of speculation, they did not make a statement of certainty. So they were wrong. I think that's pretty easily explained, right?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Follow up...

What I'm saying is you referenced the "EPA statement" as if the EPA had officially declared the radioactive levels at ground zero were from DU in the commercial planes. But the reference you quote is not an official EPA statement, it's one dude on the phone speculating. That's terribly terribly different.

Do you have an evidence that the EPA officially declared the source of radioactivity to be DU from the planes?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Valhall
I would think there were quite a few smoke detectors involved in 200+ floors of buildings.


But again, if there was a simple explanation for the radiation why would the EPA state that the radiation was casued by Depleted Uranium from the planes. The 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Also why would the EPA state the area was safe if they knew about radiation ?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Maybe the EPA is as inept as FEMA ??? Just a thought.




top topics



 
12
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join