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.

 

Radiation... Could it be a hoax ?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


not to deflect sinter, i made a post concerning this issue because it has come up in a few different topics.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Ok, I must have skipped over those very last questions, forgive my ignorance.



1.How can it be that wildlife show to be less affected by radiation ? Are we so different ?
I don't think they are really less affected by it...that video you embedded was interesting, but I'm pretty sure that area was like a dead zone when the meltdown first occurred, it's taken quite some time for the natural life in the area to come back to that stage. There have been tests done on both humans and animals...neither of us like radiation very much...



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



3. Could the source come from something else all together ? Since animals are not really effected.
Well, we can produce gamma rays in a few ways, but in the end radiation still comes from one thing, and that's matter/particles...where else can it come from, another dimension?



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 ?
The US Government isn't poisoning you with radiation...though I wouldn't drink the tap water...so what they test a lot of nukes, and use depleted radiation for munition, how is that going to poison us?



You have read about natural radiation sources and I assume you are now aware we live in a world totally engulfed by radiation ?
Yes...but it's low level radiation filtered by our atmosphere...perhaps if you lived a few meters away from a power station or phone tower you might want to think twice about your proximity to a source of electromagnetic radiation like that...but otherwise, we haven't yet filled our skies with a dangerous amount of EMR...if you talk on a mobile phone however, you might want to hold it slightly away from your ear, ever notice your ear get really hot? That's exactly the same thing that's happening in a microwave...

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 



I don't think they are really less affected by it...that video you embedded was interesting, but I'm pretty sure that area was like a dead zone when the meltdown first occurred, it's taken quite some time for the natural life in the area to come back to that stage. There have been tests done on both humans and animals...neither of us like radiation very much...


That's just it. Those guys from the video which is part of a whole series on this topic.
They say that according our understanding and the predictions that were made with it, they are not supposed to discover what is currently happening out there.

I understand that when the predictions fail to fit the theory, the theory is wrong and should be reassessed.


Not very likely...


Let me put it in different words.

It seems both animal as human life has a far greater capability to cope and resist the negative effects of radioactive radiation.


Well, we can produce gamma rays in a few ways, but in the end radiation still comes from one thing, and that's matter/particles...where else can it come from, another dimension?


I was referring to another source for the health issues. Not the radiation.



The US Government is poisoning you with radiation...though I wouldn't drink the tap water...so what they test a lot of nukes, and use depleted radiation for munition, how is that going to poison us?


No, not just the US government.

A radioactive particle takes a long time to decay. One that will happen to settle comfortably in a soft ball of lung tissue will be radiating Alpha waves and that will definitely develop into a tumor of some kind.

I have already learned that a nuclear fall out will not cause a lot of damage after it fell. The original nuclear material will stay dangerous for a lot longer.

I do not know if the explosion actually destroys the nuclear material or that it spreads the left overs.

I am unaware of the amount of radiation I'm exposed to but I do avoid to be in places to be a high radiation source. I do not want to waste my time worrying about something I do not hav any control over.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S

...if you talk on a mobile phone however, you might want to hold it slightly away from your ear, ever notice your ear get really hot? That's exactly the same thing that's happening in a microwave...


Hmm... my ear get's hot because the current drain on the battery causes the battery to warm up and the body of the phone conducts that heat to me, or at least that's my experience. On short calls, say a few minutes, the battery gets warm; I have felt that in my hand when I grasp the phone to end the call. Moderately longer calls, around 10-15 minutes cause the phone's keypad to warm up as well: the battery is behind the keypad. Only on the longest of calls does the top of the phone near my ear get warm enough to warm my ear.

If it were the radio waves, why doesn't my hand get warm holding the phone... right next to the antennae?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
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.


My apologies for going broad in defining radiation.
I was thinking of bringing all radiation together for discussion 'cause some people think any radiation is bad in spite of much of it being natural and us being exposed to it every day from x-rays at the doctors' offices, radon gas seeping from the ground, radiation from power lines, x-rays from space, radioactive particles in fuel, water... the atmosphere.

Some of this is new to us, or relatively new and we're still learning. Short of having the detectors and sitting around measuring, monitoring and cataloging, so much is still up in the air.

As for the equipment I work on causing effects... I've been doing this going on 15 years and still have a full head of hair as do most of the guys; those that don't are in their 40's and 50's, right about when you'd expect natural hair loss to be setting in. Some I work with have complained of dizziness or metallic tastes in their mouths and one guy said he heard a buzzing in his ears, but this is always only when they're near the antennas. Other than that, no one I know has developed cancer from it. None that didn't wear glasses starting out need them now, those that needed them still do and no one I know has developed cataracts.

Pardon the diversion here but the folowing anecdote is relative to cell phone radiation.
At one site I was working on I was nearly acosted by guy claiming to have developed brain tumors from the cell site on top of the building he was living in. He'd just moved there about 6 months prior. He claimed his doctor says it's the site. In summary, within 6 months he got cancer from a cell site 70 feet over his head... and at the time I was working near live antennas... within 4 feet... and had been doing so 5-6 days a week, 6-7 hours a day for 6 years. I'd have to say I've had quite a bit more exposure than him.
And honestly, more exposure than 15 of my friends combined, from their cell phones. Remember that your phone puts out less than 4 watts typically, and a cell site can put out 100, and most people aren't on their phones for 8 constant hours... much less the 200 hours they'd need to equate to one day at work for me.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by theclutch


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


Coleman lantern mantles are more radioactive then DU.
DU is a alpha emitter.
thorium-234 is a alpha and beta emitter


In the late 60s and 70s i prospected for uranium and campground were fun as many of them were hot, Radioactive HOT.
And you thought camping was fun.
By the way i no longer stay in campgrounds. to dangerous.

I had two types of Geiger i used one to read gamma and one to read alpha and beta.

Then you had to know how two check the ratios to tell if the ore you were dealing with was uranium or at that time worthless thorium.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 




It seems both animal as human life has a far greater capability to cope and resist the negative effects of radioactive radiation.
Well...that could very well be true...especially if humans aren't completely terrestrial...I believe several mass extinctions have been due to sudden increased amounts of radiation hitting the Earth...this would build up a natural resistance to radiation in Earths terrestrial life forms...


BTW, I meant to say "The US Government isn't poisoning you with radiation...though I wouldn't drink the tap water..." I've fixed it up in my earlier post.

reply to post by abecedarian
 




If it were the radio waves, why doesn't my hand get warm holding the phone... right next to the antennae?
Probably because your hand and is thicker and meatier than the thin membrane of your ear...small amounts of food heat up quicker in a microwave...I'm not completely sure if the EMR released by phones is of the right wavelength/frequency to stimulate particles and cause friction, leading to heat...but I've had times when my ear has gotten way too hot, way too quickly...I suspect it plays a role in the heat you feel...

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


No apology needed.

I actually learned something new today. So that is always a good thing.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Haha. In my country the water from the tap is cleaner and tastier then you can get bottled.

I've heard of a theory where a gamma ray burst effectively sterilizes everything in its path, destroys our ozone layer and leave us unprotected from the rays of the sun and our galactic neighborhood for about 10 years.

I've also created a thread about: Junk DNA

It offers some info about our DNA and that our so called "Junk DNA" is actually there for a reason.

Recent discoveries on our bodies to fight of DNA and/or genetic damage are also mentioned.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I would like to add; What is a safe level before cell decay?

What is the amount of natural exposure before cell damage?

Never believe what one in authority has to say , yes they write the book but there writings are not always right, " Your friend the ATOM" "The ATOMIC AGE" "How to Find Uranium, and mine it"

Ever see a field of 4 leaf clover? I have, read this "Trojan Nuclear Power Plant"



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Take a look at the link Unit radiation dose for an explanation and the linked source I posted under radiation poisoning in the OP. The second and third link I think.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Sinter Klaas, What exactly are you saying is a hoax or is being misrepresented?
As far as I can tell radiation acts as is expected. There are numerous studies showing the adverse effects of ionising radiation on biological systems. What is it specifically that you are challenging here?

You have to be very careful when evaluating statistics about the health effects of Chernobyl. Typically the government, the international atomic energy agency(IAEA) and the world health organisation(WHO) say everything is fine but many experts disagree and say there has been a cover-up of the real magnitude of the effects.

You can find some good information about this subject here:

www.ippnw-students.org...

This page is particularly informative:

www.ippnw-students.org...




[edit on 8-8-2010 by mrwiffler]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


The fear mongering of tptb which resulted in a form of control and power on the public and rival nations.

Leaving the majority with the idea that radioactivity and it effects are a 100 % bad thing.

Where it is more a part of our lives then we could imagine .

In the mean time they have done exactly what they made us fear. Hypocrites !

I'm not do not challenge any radiation, I only challenge the explanation given to us.
I learned recent studies do end with unexpected results but to be honest I do not know how far these results have already been assimilated into our current understanding so...

What I do know is that I learned this only weeks ago...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Could you be more specific? What fear mongering?

As far as I can tell, our governments and the nuclear industry have historically downplayed the adverse effects of radiation. I can't help but think you have things backwards here.

Any information we receive about the dangers of radiation usually comes from experts who are anti-nuclear. The governments of the world are by and large in favour of nuclear energy. Surely our ideas about radiation in the environment are not complete and we may have over/underestimated certain aspects of the impact of radiation on ecosystems but what is well documented are the effects of radiation in relation to dosage. Have a search for statistics relating to Nagasaki, Hiroshima, the Bikini atoll and other well known populations that were exposed to high doses of radiation.

They way I see it, those who warn us of the dangers of ionising radiation are not fear mongering, they are trying to help us.


[edit on 8-8-2010 by mrwiffler]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
There is active disagreement in the radiation community about health effects of low dose radiation. Just do a google search for “radiation hormesis”

en.wikipedia.org...

www.radpro.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


I do not think that the fear of atomic weapons is good way to maintain peace around the world.

I would label that as tyranny by threatening annihilation when TSHTF.
I do not claim it is not effective. I Simply do not agree with it.

As I said. I learned some stuff and that suggests that longterm effects do not fit.
Because I do not know what to believe, I ask.

Are the results talked about in the videos posted in the OP true ?
 


Thank you for posting that link.
I found it to be highly informative.

I do have a question which I did not find in the research posted on the link.

The cancer and disease rates because of the radiation, are they from the original event and then passed down to next generations ? Or is a perfectly healthy person that would expose themselves at by visiting the contaminated sites just as to also be poisoned enough to develop the effects ?

How can it be that nature seems to be thriving on site and the effects on humans do not seem to be occur within the animal population a lot.

I'll repeat, I do not claim anything on the matter and I'm only sharing stuff they told in the videos.

I also do not deny the possibility of pro nuclear movements to create propaganda.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Thanks !


That was exactly where they were talking about. Radiation hormesis.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Hi.

First I'd like to say thank you, the links posted are very interesting and informative.

Thanks !


Personal conclusion :

The power of the atomic bomb and the threat of radioactive radiation have been used to strike fear for retaliation and has been used to maintain peace in the world. This failed and the leading nuclear power has been the aggressor in several major conflicts around the world. Therefore the only thing I can call it is tyranny.

I understand now that radioactive radiation is not safer then they tell us. However we are able to cope with it and even better when we are continuously exposed by it. This is only with normal background radiation and every man made weapon or power plant blowing up is a threat to human life, From the event all the way to the future for generations to come.

I realize this subject is divided in to a a yes and no side and this has caused miss information and propaganda that has corrupted the truth and for someone like me it is almost impossible to identify truth from fiction.

I will keep asking when I need to...


Please feel free to link more info on the subject . It will not loose my attention anytime soon.

~ Sinter



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
According to science books there are 100 to 500 ions per
cubic centimeter.

Effectively created by the random inundation of particles from the Sun
and of course subsequent recoils.

Very light elements can exhibit radiation from UV which will alter
DNA.

Very heavy elements may not entirely be save from cosmic rays
(Sun) as Tesla once considered radioactivity the effective agent.

So as radiation: ions definitely but free electrons perhaps not and
Helium nucleus might be true as easily detectable as eventual Helium formation.

The High Voltage emanations Tesla made we don't know what they
are and gamma voltages I'm not familiar with. If gamma rays are
modeled after light rays as quantum jumps in the atom I's say the
sound wave of Tesla to light might apply to gamma rays as well.
The source being voltage pressure as the source of all rays that
are not particles.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join