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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


You mean like a transition from one thing to another is the source of the power ?




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


You mean like a transition from one thing to another is the source of the power ?


In my analogy to a quantum jump is like putting a voltage pressure
in the atmosphere.
Something is the source of the excitation of course.
Heat makes atoms give off light in quantum jumps.

Tesla actually operated coils to send out one way jumps and in
antennas much the same occurs as high voltage and high frequency
tends to go one way as undulating radio transmissions.

So what causes random radiation, there must be a trigger.
I'll go with Tesla and the high speed particles from the Sun.
Tesla found the Sun beat out all other star potentials as the source.
I feel Tesla was right all along and diversions are set up to keep
the rest of us just plain dumb.

ED: Taking the Tesla theory that sound waves or pressure waves
exist in the air/ether medium all we need do is capture them.
Tesla suggested a solid metal half sphere as the 'cup' to focus
or 'pour out' on to a holding capacitor and batteries.

ED: I'd say the greatest man of technology to appear on Television,
guess you know why we do not hear much truth any more, @ 7:54


[edit on 8/10/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I can only elaborate with links on Phage's point:

"Radioactive contamination" does not equate "everything dead" but it also doesn't mean "everything ok".

A friend of mine took the tour to Chernobyl 2 years ago. I can't wait to go too. It does appear "healthy" but that's because you can't see radiation. You can and do notice effects of radiation poisening, though.

Anyways. Radioctive contamination has been documented in plants and animals consistently and repeatedly ever since the accident.

www.sciencedirect.com... ocanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1426881528&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d2f34df2b01cdbd131b00373 695ee2e4

www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp...

www.springerlink.com...

www.sciencedirect.com... canchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1426881551&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4dd8e2859a797bd7c6f4c71f9 48ed818

[edit on 10-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I know they detected contamination many times.

Further more...

The comment from phage does not say anything. The reason for this thread was not to claim radioactive stuff has been imagined to mess with our heads.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I know they detected contamination many times.

Further more...

The comment from phage does not say anything. The reason for this thread was not to claim radioactive stuff has been imagined to mess with our heads.


... I know.. But that it's possibly not all that dangerous?

I encourage you to read about the genetic effects posted in the links. I find that an intruiging idea but considering the documented genetic effects I think it is quite safe to assume that there is serious danger to it.

bjr.birjournals.org...

¨Sorry if I completely misunderstood you. If that's the case I'll have to readit again more carefully. But if this is your point I think it can empirically be shown to be moot.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Well...

I read the links and I'm convinced that the only thing that is a hoax is our knowledge on the matter as the data shows the results are different from what we thought they should be.

You probably misunderstood me but that's OK. You were not the only one.
I guess I have myself to blame for it. Maybe I should have been more clear or change the order of the thread.

Anyway. I'm still pleased as I found a satisfying amount of new info that have helped me to form a better opinion.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Want to know all the effects after radiation hits? Watch white light/black rain. The most saddest thing ever. It is a documentary after the Nagasaki/Hiroshima bombs.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
1.How can it be that wildlife show to be less affected by radiation ? Are we so different ?

I think we are different, it is well known that roaches can survive extreme radiation. Perhaps that immunity to radiation is expressed in a gene that is found in other species of animals but not humans.

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

I'm inclined to believe that they are. One of the few remaining survivors of Hiroshima will tell you the horrible death his mother died after exposure. Weaponized radiation is extremely harmful for a number of reasons. Even radiation used to treat cancer takes it's toll on the patients who have died sooner than if they had forgone radiation treatments.

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

Elements like Uranium are radioactive in their natural state, meaning they emit radiation. This occurs on an atomic level, meaning the atoms are generating radiation. Proton, neutron and electron arrangements decide atomic structure and how atoms behave, giving elements unique properties such as hardness, radiation, ect.. It's just part of the variety of the universe.

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 truth is that the most powerful nuclear wepons that have been created have thankfully never been used to inflict the mass casualties they were designed to inflict. It's unfortunate Albert Einstein was exploited to develop this type of weapon and that people who have been/are in power see such weapons as a necessity. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not need to happen, Pearl Harbor was no justification.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by slopeofyourmind
 

Albert Einstein had little to do with the theory behind or the development of the atomic bomb. The equation from his special theory of relativity showed how much energy could be generated but not how to do it. He was not "exploited" he voluntarily contributed what he did (not very much) to the effort.

If anyone other than Oppenheimer can be credited with the idea of a fission device it would be Neils Bohr. He knew much more about atomic theory than Einstein and brought information about German efforts to the US.

The reason for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not Pearl Harbor. It was the ending of the war.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
It's not a hoax to me. It gave me cancer. I'm sure that radiation is real, as the Veterans Administration would not pay me big bucks for a hoax.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If it wasn't for Einsteins's theory of relativity, there never would have been an atomic bomb. If it wasn't for Einstein's letter to Roosevelt warning that Germany was developing an atom bomb (I wonder who made him write the letter), the U.S. would have never went into the atom bomb making business. Einstein's intelligence and influence were very much exploited to create weapons of mass destruction.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by slopeofyourmind]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by slopeofyourmind
 

You need to study the history of nuclear science to find out who was "exploited". You'll find names like Fermi, Hahn, Meitner, and Strassmann. You won't find Einstein there. It was not until years after Fermi first produced fission that Hahn realized that the energy/mass equation described the energy released by the process. Rather than Einstein aiding nuclear science, nuclear science confirmed Einstein.

Actually, in all likelihood, the U.S. would have created the atomic bomb without Einstein's (voluntary) influence. It was Bohr who brought information about the state of nuclear research to Einstein. It was not Einstein's work and it was not Einstein alone who encouraged (yes, encouraged) the development of the bomb.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Of course history books aren't going to say Einstein was exploited because that's what powerful people want them to say. His exploitation is linked to key events in WWII involving allot of bloodshed and that just wouldn't look good for a superpower to have exploited Einstein to commit murder, would it? I'm sorry but it was Einstein's energy/mass equation that made the Atom bomb so deadly.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by slopeofyourmind]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamusan
 


I'm sorry to hear that.

I was not trying to argue about the immediate effects, only the long term effects.



[edit on 8/19/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by slopeofyourmind
 


Thank you for your answers.

So you say Einsteins equation is the prime cause for the atomic bomb.

@ Phage

I understand you don't agree. Why ? Could it have been successful without Einsteins equation ?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by slopeofyourmind
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm sorry but it was Einstein's energy/mass equation that made the Atom bomb so deadly.



No. It was the nature of the universe which made the atom bomb so deadly. Einstein's equation only made it possible to quantify the energy produced.

The only thing required to make an atomic bomb work is a sufficient amount of fissionable material being jammed together. Relativity has nothing to do with it. From the first time that fission was produced it was known that a great amount of energy was released. Before the connection with Einstein's equation was made, it was known that a chain reaction could be produced which would release a tremendous amount of energy. If Einstein had not produced the equation it would not have prevented the creation of nuclear weapons.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

If Einstein had not produced the equation it would not have prevented the creation of nuclear weapons.



I'll give you that. However- Einstein biographer Ronald Clark also observed that the atomic bomb would have been invented without Einstein's letters, but that without the early U.S. work that resulted from the letters, the a-bombs might not have been ready in time to use during the war on Japan.

If that is the case then maybe no one, save the many thousands, would have ever had to die by means of nuclear blast. Maybe there would have been no cold war and freer, more advanced nuclear energy today. The Russians could have easily defeated the Kwantung Army without dropping those bombs that killed so many civilians.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by slopeofyourmind
 

Yes, maybe it would have been better for the hundreds of thousands who would have died in an invasion of Japan to have died by being shot, burned, and blown to pieces.

Yes, maybe the US and the Soviet Union would have stopped developing nuclear weapons if the development did not start as early as it did. Just like all weapons development stopped at the end of the war.

Yes, maybe the US and the Soviet Union would have been great friends.

But I kind of doubt it.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I have no doubt that the hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens who were not part of Japan's army who were killed by the atom bomb would not have died as part of a ground invasion that resulted from Japan's refusal to surrender. Those citizens were located on residential islands and were in relative safety until the atom bomb was developed and dropped on them. Sure, the people who were close enough to the bomb died relatively painless deaths, but I would rather be burned alive by napalm than die a slow, agonizing death from radiation poisoning.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by slopeofyourmind]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I'm well enough and so is life these days. Full remission.

I've been to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are plenty of healthy people living there. The men can knock up their women, and their offspring are healthy. The vegetation, insect and animal life seemed to be just fine as well. I remember when my wife's uncle offered to take me to those places, I expressed concern about radiation, and he just laughed a lot. He said that I'd be just fine. And I was.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join