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.

 

NO radiation in USA

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by chocise

I honestly cannot for the life of me recall ANY incident within the UK which supports his opinion. I believe if there had been, the likes of The Sun, Mirror, Express and Daily Mail would've been all over it. Objectively, attributing just 1000 infant deaths directly to the aftermath of Chernobyl would be extremely tenuous, to say it is definitively so is an absolute out & out lie.


Again this is opinion. Can you post any report or article that debunks what I have posted? I have listed sources, where are yours?


If i were truly that interested I would indeed go to some reference point or survey in order to counter your claims.

I'm quite sure atmospheric sampling was and is an ongoing pursuit in all developed countries and quite sure the UK monitored the radiation levels within its own boundaries but as I noted earlier, nothing of any relevant consequence ever hit the national headlines and the UK did not suffer any ill effects as a direct consequence of the Chernobyl disaster. Further, I cannot recall, or find anywhere, evidence those much nearer, in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, Luxemborg etc etc ever recorded anything untoward either.

Again, please read that earlier paragraph, emphasis added: 'To put it in context, ...... I know for a fact there would be no way of directly attributing any Chernobyl after effects to the deaths of these infants simply because it would be impossible to isolate that as the cause.

And repeated: You could not ever attribute your claimed 1000 deaths in the UK to Chernobyl or its after effects simply because you could NOT isolate that as the cause. Period. It's that simple. No scholarly work from Oxbridge or Harvard would contest that point.

Far be it from me to remind you it was yourself who brought this dubious claim to our attention, the burden of proof is in your court: it is up to you to provide us with evidence to support your claim.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise

If i were truly that interested I would indeed go to some reference point or survey in order to counter your claims.


So your just going to give your opinion again because you are lazy. Either buck up and support your opinion with facts or move on.


Originally posted by chocise
I'm quite sure atmospheric sampling was and is an ongoing pursuit in all developed countries and quite sure the UK monitored the radiation levels within its own boundaries but as I noted earlier, nothing of any relevant consequence ever hit the national headlines and the UK did not suffer any ill effects as a direct consequence of the Chernobyl disaster. Further, I cannot recall, or find anywhere, evidence those much nearer, in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, Luxemborg etc etc ever recorded anything untoward either.


Your quite sure. Well why didn't you say so from the begining. Make's all the difference. Must be telling the truth.




Originally posted by chocise
Again, please read that earlier paragraph, emphasis added: 'To put it in context, ...... I know for a fact there would be no way of directly attributing any Chernobyl after effects to the deaths of these infants simply because it would be impossible to isolate that as the cause.


You "know for a fact" but present no science, only an opinion.

Getting sadder



Originally posted by chocise
And repeated: You could not ever attribute your claimed 1000 deaths in the UK to Chernobyl or its after effects simply because you could NOT isolate that as the cause. Period. It's that simple. No scholarly work from Oxbridge or Harvard would contest that point.


My claimed deaths? I claimed nothing, only presented a actual article which is a hell of a lot more than you have done.

Again, I say support yourself with facts. Something other than your opinion for pete's sake.


Originally posted by chocise
Far be it from me to remind you it was yourself who brought this dubious claim to our attention, the burden of proof is in your court: it is up to you to provide us with evidence to support your claim.


I have presented my supporting evidence in the form of actual articles. If what I posted is supported by sources then burden is on you to disprove it with other sources and not your opinion.
edit on 20-3-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 




Scientists at Newcastle University examined rates of thyroid cancer in children across northern England before and after the Chernobyl cloud passed overhead.



thyroid cancer would be caused by iodine 131 with a half life of a whopping 8 days. sorry people, a large spike in one region should always be compared to a similarly contaminated region elsewhere, say Sweden or Germany. Cesium and especially Strontium should be causing bone + blood related diseases. statistical attribution is a dangerous game and far from victimless, too.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Well I've just spent an hour or so reading up on what I could find immediately and lo and behold I'm spot on. It is widely accepted you could not attribute any deaths or illnesses within the UK to Chernobyl [simply because it is impossible to isolate it as the cause – the radiation levels were too low]. This is a statement of fact, and not something requiring a source. You either accept it, or don't. If you don't accept it please tell the world community how you'd identify it as the cause as you'd be the only person on the planet capable of doing so.

Over to you.

Let me remind you again, it is up to you to give us the evidence in support of your dubious claims, something you're evidently shy of doing. Journalist's opinions and their articles don't count btw.
edit on 20-3-2011 by chocise because: Emphasis added to help FreeSpeaker



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


This is a statement of fact, and not something requiring a source. You either accept it, or don't.

Over to you.


Your hillarious and I'm done with you until you present something more than your opinion.

Santa Claus is real. This is a statement of fact, and not something requiring a source. You either accept it, or don't.

Over to you.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Santa Claus is real. This is a statement of fact, and not something requiring a source. You either accept it, or don't.

Over to you.



Quite.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Id like to ask everybody reading this on the Gulf Coast: Do you trust the EPA?
(or the government for that matter)
I hope the rest of the U.S. might learn from you.

edit on 20-3-2011 by AnimositisominA because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
We are all going to die! Dont listen to the Government! We will all die!!!

lol , get real. Everything will be fine. Arent we supposed to be in meltdown phase by now? Isnt that what you fear mongers convinced us of?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Radiation will create more gays, please get the message out before its to late.Radiated gays the 3 sign of the apopyclopse.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
Let me remind you again, it is up to you to give us the evidence in support of your dubious claims, something you're evidently shy of doing. Journalist's opinions and their articles don't count btw.
edit on 20-3-2011 by chocise because: Emphasis added to help FreeSpeaker


Not that I have to give evidence but I'll be nice and give one last post.


"Some of this radioactivity, predominantly radiocaesium-137, was deposited on certain upland areas of the UK, where sheep-farming is the primary land-use. Due to the particular chemical and physical properties of the peaty soil types present in these upland areas, the radiocaesium is still able to pass easily from soil to grass and hence accumulate in sheep. A maximum limit of 1,000 becquerels per kilogramme (Bq/kg) of radiocaesium is applied to sheep meat affected by the accident to protect consumers. This limit was introduced in the UK in 1986, based on advice from the European Commission's Article 31 group of experts. Under power provided under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), Emergency Orders have been used since 1986 to impose restrictions on the movement and sale of sheep exceeding the limit in certain parts of Cumbria, North Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland... When the Emergency Orders were introduced in 1986, the Restricted Areas were large, covering almost 9,000 farms, and over 4 million sheep. Since 1986, the areas covered by restrictions have dramatically decreased and now cover 369 farms, or part farms, and around 200,000 sheep. This represents a reduction of over 95% since 1986, with only limited areas of Cumbria, South Western Scotland and North Wales, covered by restrictions.

Chernobyl disaster effects


Before Emlyn Roberts, a North Wales sheep farmer, can take any of his lambs to market, he has to call in the government inspectors with their Geiger counters. They scan the animals for signs of radiation because the land they graze is still contaminated from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster which occurred 20 years ago this month. If the radiation levels are too high, the lambs cannot be sold for meat until they have spent time on other land.

20 years on, Britain still feels the effects of Chernobyl


Levels of radioactivity from the Chernobyl explosion in 1986 remain unexpectedly high in some parts of northern Europe, researchers have found.

They say restrictions on some foods in both the United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union will have to remain in place for up to 50 years.

They found that the environment is not cleaning itself as fast as previously thought, and that radioactivity can be released to the soil again after it has been absorbed.

Chernobyl's effects linger on


Contamination arrived in Britain through light nuclear rain, and radiocaesium-137 was deposited in mainly upland areas of Wales, Scotland and England where it seeped into the peaty soil used mainly to breed livestock.

The European Commission ruled that a maximum level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram (bq/k) of radiocaesium should be allowed in sheep being reared for meat to safeguard the consumer. Similar guidelines were given for fish affected by contaminated rivers.

Effects of Chernobyl explained


Thyroid cancer in children is however, currently assuming greater importance, because of the reports of a greatly in-creased frequency in children exposed to fallout in the areas around Chernobyl (Baverstock et al., 1992; Kazakov et al.,1992; Williams et al., 1993). In addition there have been reports that thyroid carcinoma is increasing in incidence in Sweden and England and Wales (Pettersson et al., 1991; dos Santos Silva and Swerdlow, 1993) with suggestions that this too might be linked to exposure to fallout.

Childhood thyroid cancer in England and Wales

That enough proof for you that the UK is still damaged from fallout.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


Thanks for putting this up, although I previously stated about my own experiences I am glad someone was able to back up what I said.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
The French radiation map:
www.irsn.fr...

Things aren't looking that good...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The United States Government has an extensive network of radiation monitors around the country and no radiation levels of concern have been detected. "To them "0" would be a level of concern because no-one would get sick so there medical set-up could make money or no-one would die so the global population would go down..."

You would believe what the U.S. Corporation Of America tells you something concerning your and your family's life?
Come on man, don't go out like that...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope they're joking.

Lots on here, and lots of radnet, the Gov monitor, their Gross Beta Count is important and 100-125 is danger, not high, mind you, but a concern. over 100 and over 200 have been noted.

What they also didn't tell you, is that the jetstream carried it over in 2-3 days. They said Friday. Which meant that on Saturday they said, its already in the atlantic heading to europe. That was nice of them.

The mox fuel, Shroom cloud, second explosion loaded with PU went over Tuesday and Wednesday, which meant in the car, with the leak in the seals (so it always fogs up on the inside) it rained, and I smelt chlorine pool smell. I guess a nice PU shower that they didn't care to warn anyone about.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

Hahahahahaaaaaa.



I read all those extracts before you found them and there's still ZERO in there. Monitoring for radio activity is not the same as suffering from it! If you read it without simply copying and pasting you'd have read the tiny areas affected in the UK: some upland areas of Wales & Cumbria which were contaminated by tiny amounts of Ceasium, were not a great trauma for the farmers or even the sheep involved – sheep on higher ground were rotated to lower pastures and then sold directly into the food chain.

You could of course, go to your favourite source: newspapers, but even here, an astute mind will see nothing of any great relevance supporting your hysterical claims 'the UK was, and still is radiated by fall-out from Chernobyl'. Tiny amounts were monitored, as would be expected, but the UK was not irradiated in the manner you claim 'causing 1000s of infant mortalities'. Get real!

Also, and fundamental to your rant, you still cannot counter my one claim in all this BS: that it would be impossible to attribute any cause. You can't refute it, so you conveniently ignore it and spin out some ad absurdum come strawmen arguments.

I'm glad you're laughing, I'll join you. It really is too funny. Thank you for entertaining me this past few hrs.

edit on 20-3-2011 by chocise because: Typo: your/you're



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Don't know if any one cares ,but I live in Western New York,We have two geiger counters that we have been using to check radiation levels with. Until two days ago we got nothing on either meter, then on the 0.1 setting we got a reading of 1 which would correspond to I think one tenth of a roetegen an hour. Not much but readable ,where before there was nothing. Heres a link for the meter reading in case I'm wrong and some one with more knowlege than I have can correct me.
www.geigercounters.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Are you sure it read zero on the first test... that's quite unusual, you'd expect at least some background radiation.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


This meter is an analog meter Before taking a reading you set the zero. then there is a test of the circuitry that is performed.Previous to two days ago when following the directions for setting zero and testing the meter, the reading was a very slight fluctiation of the meter at the lowest setting. Now after the same zero and testing the meter reads just over 1 on the meter which I interpert as one tenth of a roetegen per hour according to the manuel.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

Hahahahahaaaaaa.



We're all laughing to.... at you.



Originally posted by chociseI read all those extracts before you found them and there's still ZERO in there. Monitoring for radio activity is not the same as suffering from it! If you read it without simply copying and pasting you'd have read the tiny areas affected in the UK: some upland areas of Wales & Cumbria which were contaminated by tiny amounts of Ceasium, were not a great trauma for the farmers or even the sheep involved – sheep on higher ground were rotated to lower pastures and then sold directly into the food chain.


You read nothing but the first post ,its obvious, and I'll get to why soon.


Originally posted by chociseYou could of course, go to your favourite source: newspapers, but even here, an astute mind will see nothing of any great relevance supporting your hysterical claims 'the UK was, and still is radiated by fall-out from Chernobyl'. Tiny amounts were monitored, as would be expected, but the UK was not irradiated in the manner you claim 'causing 1000s of infant mortalities'. Get real!


At least I have a source. This is ATS pal, everything needs a source or its not worth posting.



Originally posted by chociseAlso, and fundamental to your rant, you still cannot counter my one claim in all this BS: that it would be impossible to attribute any cause. You can't refute it, so you conveniently ignore it and spin out some ad absurdum come strawmen arguments.


Your claim is your own opinion which is NOT supported by one single news article, report, documentary , or experience.

And as to why I know you only read the first link is because my last link is a PDF from the British Journal of Cancer by Department of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Camnbridge CB2 2QQ, K.

Apparently you know more than them huh.



Originally posted by chociseI'm glad you're laughing, I'll join you. It really is too funny. Thank you for entertaining me this past few hrs.

edit on 20-3-2011 by chocise because: Typo: your/you're


I'm glad your laughing. If I made such a fool of myself I wouldn't log on for a while.

Good Night to you.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by routerboy
 


you have lost your marbles what the hell do you mean we have nothing to worry about?? Who the hell are you and what part of the govt. kissinga## program or job do you serve? Do you really believe people on here with brains believes your garbage????







 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join