It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Radiation... Could it be a hoax ?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:05 AM

I've recently been confronted with several new view points radioactivity.Well... New to me that is.
I really had to adjust my opinion because of it, and I'm going to try and explain why,by offering you the same info.

Keep in mind that I'm not an expert. I'm only a messenger. I do however come to a few conclusions, conclusions that can be wrong. Please don't hesitate to correct my mistakes ?

I will start at the beginning.


Radioactivity refers to the particles which are emitted from nuclei as a result of nuclear instability. Because the nucleus experiences the intense conflict between the two strongest forces in nature, it should not be surprising that there are many nuclear isotopes which are unstable and emit some kind of radiation. The most common types of radiation are called alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, but there are several other varieties of radioactive decay.

penetration of matter

Though the most massive and most energetic of radioactive emissions, the alpha particle is the shortest in range because of its strong interaction with matter. The electromagnetic gamma ray is extremely penetrating, even penetrating considerable thicknesses of concrete. The electron of beta radioactivity strongly interacts with matter and has a short range.


The basics are important and it tel us:

Alpha particles:

The alpha particle is the heaviest. It is produced when the heaviest elements decay. Alpha and beta rays are not waves. They are high-energy particles that are expelled from unstable nuclei. In the case of alpha radiation, the energy The particles leave the nucleus . The alpha particle is an helium atom and contains two neutrons and two protons. It leaves the nucleus of an unstable atom at a speed of 16,000 kilometres per second, around a tenth the speed of light. The alpha particles is relatively large and heavy. As a result, alpha rays are not very penetrating and are easily absorbed. A sheet of paper or a 3-cm layer of air is sufficient to stop them.

Beta particles:

Beta rays are much lighter energy particles. The beta particle is an energetic electron given off by the nucleus of unstable isotopes to restore an energy balance. They leave the nucleus at a speed of 270,000 kilometres per second. They can be stopped, for instance, by an aluminium sheet a few millimetres thick or by 3 metres of air.

Gamma particles:

The next "particle" is the very high energy "X-ray" called the gamma ray. It is an energetic photon or light wave in the same electromagnetic family as light and x-rays, but is much more energetic and harmful. It is capable of damaging living cells as it slows down by transferring its energy to surrounding cell components.

So... Now you know what it is.

I guess you should also know the measurement units.

Units of radiation dose.

Helpful but not that important when you are lacking a sufficient understanding on topic ( Like me ), it does help because they often give a specific dose to a result and so on.

Lets take a look at the damage it can do.

Radiation poisoning.

Probable Health Effects resulting from Exposure to Ionising Radiation

Dose in rems.

1000 : Immediate death.

0 - 10 : None.

Visit the source to learn the effects of doses in between 1000 and 10.


I'm pretty sure the overall thoughts are pretty much telling you to stay away from radiation all together... Avoid the stuff by all means possible.

Well...That's just it. It is impossible to avoid it. It is all around us... Anywhere, anytime, 24-7.

Where ?

Natural sources of radiation.

Cosmic radiation

comes from the sun and outer space and consists of positively charged particles, as well as gamma radiation. At sea level, the average cosmic radiation dose is about 26 mrem per year. At higher elevations the amount of atmosphere shielding cosmic rays decreases and thus the dose increases. The average dose in the United States is approximately 28 mrem/year.

Terrestrial radiation

There are natural sources of radiation in the ground, rocks, building materials and drinking water supplies. Some of the contributors to terrestrial sources are natural radium, uranium and thorium. Radon gas is a current health concern. This gas is from the decay of natural uranium in soil. Radon, which emits alpha radiation, rises from the soil under houses and can build up in homes, particularly well-insulated homes. In the USA, the average effective whole body dose from radon is about 200 mrem per year while the lungs receive approximately 2000 mrem per year.

Human body

Our bodies also contain natural radionuclides. Potassium 40 is one example. The total average dose is approximately 40 mrem/year.

I realize that a lot of the info I offer is copy pasted, but I think you should know at least the basics to know what it is what I intend to imply and discuss with this thread.

Human sources of radiation.

Medical radiation sources

Consumer products

Industrial sources

Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons

As a whole, these sources of natural and human-made radiation are referred to as background.

The average annual radiation dose to a member of the general population from ALL background sources is about 360 millirem.


The next link will guide you to a spliced up circle of radiation sources. ( PDF )

The above information is intended for those unaware and/or uneducated people to gain a little more understanding about radiation. They are necessary to understand the next part of this thread, not in detail but at least the basics...

Now, you a are probably aware of a couple of man made sources that is released in to public territory.

Nuclear residual leftover particles from testing atomic weapons. This is said to be regarded as background radiation.

Personally I think the my questions start here. My experience is that we have been continuously remembered to the devastating effects of radiation. Almost anyone you ask about what they think is the worst thing that can happen on earth, and their answer will be "Nuclear war"

What if the fear mongering has always been intended to subject people and nations not to mess with those who control the power of the atomic bomb ?

I understand the Japanese were already aware they were losing the war, and they were looking for ways to negotiate a peace treaty. That would make the use of not one but two atomic bombs completely unnecessary and the biggest crime to humanity ever to take place in a single event... Make that two...

Why do it anyway ? To make sure the whole world will be witness to the biggest most powerful weapon ever constructed and obtain control by fear.

Did you know there have been 2053 documented nuclear explosions that have taken place the last 60 years or so ?

You can read about it in the following thread that includes a map that shows the location of every single one, and the nation responsible for it...

Nukes, Nukes and More Nukes!
Thread by TV_Nation.

Basically you could say that our biggest fear has been taking place continuously for the last 60 years while they were telling us it is the worst case scenario.

There is more !

Munition contaminated with depleted uranium.

Why ?

Because depleted uranium is regarded as waste and isn't worth any good money. As a resource for munition it is perfect and cheap.

Poison DUst: Depleted Uranium Kills Thread by Soficrow.

ATS search results on depeted uranium munition.

Could they really be that stupid ?

Are the big corporate industries and elite of the world really be so careless and stupid to poison their home, their only safe haven and the only place we can survive called earth... For profit ?

Or do they know stuff we do not...?


New studies and observations are showing results that require us to rethink our understanding of the subject as the predictions do not even come near to the results from these studies and observations...

You have read about natural radiation sources and I assume you are now aware we live in a world totally engulfed by radiation ?

This thread will continue in the following post.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:05 AM

Continuation of the opening thread.

The Chernobyl event has driven man from the region and the area is now considered a death zone, where still large amounts of radiation are measured.

Read about it in this thread : Chernobyl - 24 years on By Muckster.

The video posted by Sandri_90 shows the area to be transformed into a safe haven fore wildlife. Including endangered species. Posted here to for its great importance IMO.


It seems that animals are not really suffer from the effects of radiation...

I was introduced on the Nukes, Nukes and More Nukes!
Thread by TV_Nation.

With a series of videos in a post from Wolfenz.


That's it ! You have now seen the info I was talking about.
I've been left with a bunch of questions after what I learned. I hope some of you can answer them. I've also realized that it could be pro nuclear energy propaganda, but I do not think that is the case.

So... for my questions.

1.How can it be that wildlife show to be less affected by radiation ? Are we so different ?

2.Are the ill effects of radiation not anywhere near as harmful as we have been told.

3. Could the source come from something else all together ? Since animals are not really effected.

4. The radiation poisoning from our governments actions, could it be proof of knowledge they didn't tell us about, or are they really that insane ?

I hope I gave you all something to think about.

Please, your thoughts on the matter ?

Kind regards.

~ Sinter

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:09 AM
No wonder most of humanity worships the Sun.

(Except the heathens that worship the goddamn reflection of the Sun off the Moon.)

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:17 AM
I watched those videos a while ago and yes it does kinda make you think. Right after watching them I had the same thoughts that hey, maybe radiation dosn't really stick around that long.

I wish I had a gieger counter. I'd go around everywhere testing everything to see what kind of an output comes off of power lines/sunlight/microwave/food/clothing/appliances/computer/ect ect. If anyone knows of tests like this being done please post a link. thanks

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by theclutch

Try this one : Link.

You can order one there, I think.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:03 AM
Radiation is not a hoax. However, the "what it can do" is. To clarify, the typical mention of 'radiation' generally refers to the most commonly known types of radiation, of which there are two:

1) Ionizing.
-- Alpha & beta particles and X & gamma rays have the capability to 'ionize' atoms, or strip electrons, and thus affect how they interact with atoms nearby, which is what causes damage to cells, etc.

2) Non-ionizing.
-- Neutron radiation itself is non-ionizing but can cause make otherwise stable isotopes unstable and radioactive causing them to decay, emitting any one (or more) of the particles and/or rays mentioned above.
-- Generally speaking, electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, light, heat) with the exception of a few notable instances.
--- Ultraviolet has the potential to be ionizing at relatively low power levels.
--- Various radio frequencies may also induce ionization effects at various power levels as well- i.e. microwave. At ~2.4GHz, the typical microwave oven frequency is also the same as your Bluetooth headset and WiFi adapters and the difference is your BT and WiFi operate at far lower power levels, typically less than a few watts, than the ovens which are usually well in excess of 400 watts, and do exceed 1000 in many instances.
--- X-rays and gamma rays are electromagnetic in nature but due to the very short wavelengths and relatively-to-extraordinarily high energy levels they possess are ionizing. But even that effect can be mitigated to some degree by the actual frequency / wavelength and energy level possessed within the wave. For instance, medical x-rays are generally of lower power and short exposure times minimizing the damage done to an amount the body is usually capable of repairing in a reasonable period of time.

The lack of clarity, presentation of proper information, and/or often ignorance on the part of the speaker... the ignorance, or rather lack of knowledge, on the part of the listener ... both either separate or combined will tend to spread unfounded paranoia. Ever hear the saying "Say what you mean and mean what you say..."? I propose an addendum to that "... and know what you're talking about."

[edit on 8/8/2010 by abecedarian]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by theclutch
I wish I had a gieger counter. I'd go around everywhere testing everything to see what kind of an output comes off of power lines/sunlight/microwave/food/clothing/appliances/computer/ect ect. If anyone knows of tests like this being done please post a link. thanks

You are getting the types of radiation confused.
Radiation just refers to something radiating from a source.

Nuclear radiation. Sub atomic partials radiating from a source.

Magnetic radiation. Magnetic waves radiating from a source. (like from a magnet)

Power lines, and microwaves emit magnetic radiation.

Geiger counters can detect nuclear radiation, not magnetic radiation. I have looked around the house with a Geiger counter (because I own one) and I can tell you what you are likely to find. You won’t really find any hard (gamma) radiation. Most of your hunting will be done with the window open of the probe (so the lower energy beta particles can make it to the detector.)

Vaseline glass. It uses uranium as a coloring agent to produce a distinctive green color. It glows under a UV light.

Old coleman lamp mantles. They use thorium. Newer ones don’t use thorium so they are not radioactive.

Old clocks/watches. The paint on the dials.

Smoke detectors. The detection element uses americium 95.

All of them emit mainly beta radiation. All though, if you find some real old Vaseline that is made with non-depleted uranium, you will get some activity with the window closed on the detector. That means that it’s the more energetic gamma particles.

Out in the countryside, you will find some rocks that are a little bit more active than others. If you live out west, where uranium deposits are more common, you can find some highly radioactive rocks just laying on the ground, and sticking out of hillsides.

You will find some water wells a little “hotter” than others, depending upon the rocks the well is drilled through, and what minerals the water is leaching out of the rocks as it goes through them.

Dust that collects on stuff, inside and outside, is one of the more radioactive things. It is made up of a lot of space dust that has settled to earth from outer space. Mainly from solar wind material from that big fusion reactor that most of us see every day (the sun).

When ever we have large volcanic eruptions, it usually dumps plenty of radioactive material into the atmosphere. All the natural sources make the man made contribution pale in comparison.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Mr Tranny]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by abecedarian

I do not claim radiation to be a hoax.

With my lack of knowledge you didn't teach me something I did not know.

If you would have taken the time you should be able to understand that the only thing I question is what we are told about the severity of what radiation can do and for how long this dangerous radiation is a thread.

I ask because I don't know. Fortunately I did not reply a very large unnecessary post answering stuff that were not even asked.

Next time you could ask what is meant when you do not understand or the OP is incomprehensible, instead of assuming what you have just read. Criticizing ir and fail to produce a response where the OP has asked for.

Thank you.

Edit to apologize, a little.

After reading your reply again I saw this.

Radiation is not a hoax. However, the "what it can do" is.

That is exactly what I tried to say.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Our atmosphere's protect us from the deadly radiation of space...those 2053 nuclear explosions were done in places where the fallout wouldn't reach anybody, and if not, they were used for war, in which case you can openly research the effects of the fallout (radiation) on people. Most elements aren't radioactive enough to worry about, but I doubt you'll see anyone handling Uranium without some sort of protective gear...

That just about covers all your questions...quite simple answers when you think about it actually...

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by CHA0S

Nope... Actually you do not answer my questions.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:20 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

I've read your OP, I understand the basic premise...but I'm missing the main what exactly is your question?

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by CHA0S

I'm sorry it seems I failed to succeed in making a myself easy to understand.

These were my questions.

1.How can it be that wildlife show to be less affected by radiation ? Are we so different ?

2.Are the ill effects of radiation not anywhere near as harmful as we have been told.

3. Could the source come from something else all together ? Since animals are not really effected.

4. The radiation poisoning from our governments actions, could it be proof of knowledge they didn't tell us about, or are they really that insane ?

Which are based on observations that are not supposed to happen, they do not fit the predictions from our understanding about this subject. Studies also show unpredicted results that do not fit.

Governments have used the fear of a nuclear war to implement and consolidate power, but now it seems that long term effects are not what we have predicted them to be. The animal world seems like it is not effected at all by radiation in places like Chernobyl which are still dangerous for us with long time exposure. All kinds of human illness like cancer or birth deformities, do not seem to occur within the animal population.

Did they know, or did they pollute the world with the idea it was a lot more damaging then what seems to be the case ?

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:45 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Just because everything isn't dead doesn't mean everything is fine.

Anders Moller from the University of Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France, and Tim Mousseau from the University of South Carolina (USC) in Columbia have been studying Chernobyl's bird populations.

"We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of white feathers," Mousseau said.

Late last year Moller and Mousseau published a paper in the Journal of Animal Ecology showing that reproductive rates and annual survival rates are much lower in the Chernobyl birds than in control populations.

"In Italy around 40 percent of the barn swallows return each year, whereas the annual survival rate is 15 percent or less for Chernobyl," Mousseau said.

Working in the Red Forest area, James Morris, a USC biologist, has observed some trees with very strange twisted shapes.

The radiation, he says, is confusing the hormone signal that the trees use to determine which direction to grow.

"These trees are having a terrible time knowing which way is up," Morris said.

Please read more at the link. (External quote limitations.)

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Phage]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:50 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

wow thanks for all the information on radiation ill problay save reading it for tomrrow as i opend one link and my head almost exploded with all the big words but thanks for the knowlege!

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:55 AM
In general, radiation lasts as long as it has the potential to cause exposure or when one puts one's self in an area with exposure potential. As long as things in place to emit the particles or rays, radiation will occur. As atoms decay, radiation is given off. To say how long it lasts would be determined by the amount and half life of the element(s) involved. Surveys of nuclear detonation sites such as around White Sands show elevated levels; is that safe? I'd say it's not as safe as say Redlands, CA but if you limit your exposure there you're reasonably safe.

Trinity test site

More than sixty years after the test, residual radiation at the site measured about ten times higher than normal. The amount of radioactive exposure received during a one-hour visit to the site is about half of what a U.S. adult receives on an average day from natural and medical sources.

Still a significant amount and still unsafe for long-term continuous exposure.

You can pretty much guarantee you will never be excluded from exposure to non-ionizing radiation since radio waves, electromagnetic radiation from power lines and sunlight and heat are part of that but you know that you should wear sun block if you're outside too long, sunglasses to protect your eyes from UV, etc. Since X and gamma rays can have extra-terrestrial sources, they're a little more problematic to avoid but the atmosphere does filter most of those out leaving us relatively safe most of the time. That's not to say that something can't happen to result in abnormally high levels of those encountering the earth with a higher than average amount getting through though.

I work on cell and radio towers and we have devices to measure field strength levels and our exposure limits. If we have to work in a field for a protracted period of time, more than a few minutes, or in a strong field such as around TV or AM transmitters we wear a full-body protective suit made of cloth with interwoven stainless steel threads which acts as a faraday cage around us. In addition, we are usually in contact with the tower while wearing those which also provides a means to ground our suit further enhancing our protection. Even then though we wear exposure meters. For the most part, cell sites radiate between 4-100 watts at frequencies ranging from 700-900 MHz and 1700-2100 MHz; frequencies different than microwave ovens and much lower power. I've done EME surveys and found that the field strength at 25 watts, 100' from the base of a 25' tower is significantly less than standing 30' to the side of 100KVA transmission lines: the former at about 20% of the safe-recommended level and the latter at 300% of safe. Got power lines nearby?

[edit on 8/8/2010 by abecedarian]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by Phage

Thank you.

My sources did not discuss the bird population. Or trees for that matter.

Have you seen and or read about radiation actually has a positive effect ?
Study suggest that populated areas with high background radiation the cancer and other radiation related health problems are much lower then they are at places with a low amount of background radiation.

The explanation is that those genes that protect the body from the effects of radiation work much more effectively when they are stimulated to a certain degree.

I especially like this part.

But Mousseau is less optimistic. "One of the great ironies of this particular tragedy is that many animals are doing considerably better than when the humans were there," he said.

"But it would be a mistake to conclude they are doing better than in a control area. We just don't know what is normal [for Chernobyl]. There just haven't been enough scientific studies done."

They state wildlife seem to thrive in the area. They claim that they are doing way better on radioactive radiation then they do with us.

Yet he points out it would be a mistake to say they are doing better then in a controlled area, following with the statement that they are in no position to make any conclusion yet.


The trees are responding weird yes, but this could be from a period where radiation levels were much higher then today. We can't tell.

The reason for the barn swallow population being more effected is given when they said that the birds were in a far from optimal condition when they arrive at the site.

We are starting to understand more and more of the human immune system and its capability to fight of the effects of radiation. The best defense is a healthy and optimal functioning immune system.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:05 AM
Everything on this planet is a hoax dont you get it! The hoax isn't a visual illusion, its an illusion of life or death!!!!!!

Wake up for real already...

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:07 AM
reply to post by CHA0S

there is a book you should read "Down winders the survivors of atomic testing" the story's told of the residents of saint gorge Utah. i lost 1/4 of my family to that time in our atomic age some to the testing some to the mining of ore.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by abecedarian

That is really interesting info you have posted but another topic all together.
You should compose a thread. It sounds very interesting.

In this case, I am referring to radioactive radiation. Like from nuclear fall out.

Do the frequencies you work with or near also cause typical radiation poisoning effects ? Like nausea, vomiting or loss of hair.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by onequestion

Please feel free to elaborate.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in