Whoa...Anyone seen this Fallout Model?

page: 3
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
It isn't easy...
there is little comfort in knowing a lot of things these days I'm afraid

I added the stuff from Cass Ingram
because he seems to be successfully curing long term radiation sicknesses with the constituents in those items
edit on 31-3-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
www.irsn.fr...



Someone please tell me it's wrong. NOW. I don't believe that is an April Fools joke, either.


Its a Frech model and yes it's very real.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I truly believe this is the beginning of the end for most of the world's population. What happens when a disaster of ANY kind happens in the U.S. or China and the reactors melt down there too? We are going to orchestrate our own demise in the name of profit.
edit on 31-3-2011 by wtf1is1happening because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


You know, you ought to call your little buddy there and ask him to give you the real rundown of how serious this is- then give us a shout back.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Must see, very important, and breaking news:



And yes, I know that was uploaded by "him"... but at least in this case it is not "him" that does the talking and is from another site.
edit on Thu Mar 31st 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 



are you not looking at the shades and how they correlate to the measurements of radiation? because most of that is pretty freaking light to be going all doom and gloom at this point.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I have seen a few that were pretty close to this one.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Thank you for posting that video....I thought it gave more credibility to what's
really happening, and he says it straight in layman's terms. I know you are a well respected poster
from following you on the EQ Arkansas thread, prior this disaster. I appreciate all your informative info.

Ektar



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Please, people! This map is NOT something that should be scaring you. I'm not saying "You shouldn't be scared!" just that _this_ map is nowhere NEAR enough to cause concern. Look at the scale. If you don't have familiarity with logarithmic graphs, then 1) get some and work to get an intuitive understanding of them or 2) take my word for it: this is NOT, SCARY.

Try to understand the sheer _scale_ of the dilution we're talking about here. It's a cubic relationship, so every time you double your distance from the nuke site, you're diluting the radiation by 8. That really adds up over a couple of thousand miles. The figures talking about iodine levels being 5000 times the normal amount are from less than half a kilometer from the site.

Yes, there's a damned good chance that there will be some radioactive atoms from Japan that will make their way over most of the globe. That is not surprising to anyone who's been paying ANY attention. The question is: how harmful will those atoms be? What concentrations will they be at?

You can either trust the experts who've spent their lives studying just that subject or you can panic and freak-out like one of the sheeple and scream "OMG!!! I'M breathing .00000006% more radiation today than yesterday! We're DOOMED!". Or, y'know, study the subject yourself and become, if not an expert, at least capable of an educated opinion. If you do _that_ you will be much less scared... Y'know... unless you're in Japan.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Stunspot
 



But if people did that then they couldn't be wrapped up in OMG HOW MUCH THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO EVERYONE AND TRYING TO KILL US ALL!!!


just sayin


that would take away pretty much everyone around here's livelyhood



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Hint:

There is NO SAFE LEVEL of plutonium exposure.

One atom will be around for approximately 24000 years emitting unhealthy amounts of radiation for it's entire half-life.


When people breathe it in, plutonium may remain in the lungs or move to the bones or organs. Generally it stays in the body for a long time and continually exposes body tissues to radiation. After a few years this could result in the development of cancer. Furthermore, plutonium may affect the ability to resist disease and the radioactivity from plutonium may cause reproductive failure.


Source



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Yes, and I am also reading that plutonium cannot be detected by the typical Geiger counters that are out there, is that correct?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
No one wants to panic but when you read:


Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco was 18,100% above federal drinking water standard


enenews.com...

This disaster becomes quite concerning... like... OMG we are all going to drink radiation this month!



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Another important video update from the nuclear scientist:

vimeo.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


You are correct.

How do I know if I'm near plutonium?
You must have special equipment to detect the presence of plutonium.


Not only that, but there is this:

Is there a medical test to determine exposure to plutonium?
There are tests that can reliably measure the amount of plutonium in a urine sample, even at very low levels. Using these measurements, scientists can estimate the total amount of plutonium present in the body. Other tests can measure plutonium in soft tissues (such as body organs) and in feces, bones, and milk. However, these tests are not routinely available in a doctor's office because they require special laboratory equipment.


Source



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
www.independent.co.uk... drinks-good-for-you-745353.html#
edit on 1-4-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


I'm not really sure if i can understand the concept of 18,100% is that an unfortunate typo or are legitimate sources now just throwing caution to the wind and making up acceptible measures of percentages....did they mean times? lolol and if they are using that as a real measurement....i would imagine something not only just over 100 % but 18,000% over 100% would be pretty instantly lethal...seriously, what is this percentage supposed to mean
edit on 1-4-2011 by onyx718 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by onyx718
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


I'm not really sure if i can understand the concept of 18,100% is that an unfortunate typo or are legitimate sources now just throwing caution to the wind and making up acceptible measures of percentages....did they mean times? lolol and if they are using that as a real measurement....i would imagine something not only just over 100 % but 18,000% over 100% would be pretty instantly lethal...seriously, what is this percentage supposed to mean
edit on 1-4-2011 by onyx718 because: (no reason given)


There is another report that is also grim on that site:

Radioactive Iodine-131 in Pennsylvania rainwater sample is 3300% above federal drinking water standard


enenews.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 



thats not what I'm asking though I'm asking is something like 33000% an accepted measurement in this kind of thing, like I don't meant to laugh but i don;t know so i'm asking, how can something be over 100% if 100% is full saturation of something. Like I'm just very gob smacked by the measurement device they are using, a % sign. I'm a little confused



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by onyx718
 


I agree, I don't know what the percentage really means other then it looks ominous. How dangerous is it, is it accurate? If it's accurate then what do we do? How will it affect health? How much more of this is to come in the following weeks... it's really hard to tell based on such reports.





new topics
top topics
 
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join