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.

 

Oklahoma City hit with DANGEROUS RADIATION levels from Rain on Aug 6th 2011 [VIDEO]

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I briefly talked to the original poster of the video on his youtube account and he was pretty clear and front about the information he gave out was all he was going to give to prove that he lived in Oklahoma, time, date etc etc so if anyone else wan'ts more proof or confirmation that this is legit good luck.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
As someone has already stated, the microsievert is an incredibly SMALL measure of radiation.

Having done some simple math (on the highest number I saw watching the video, 1.62 microsieverts) if that person was exposed to that dose for an entire year, it would come out to 14.19 millisieverts. A CT scan is 20 millisieverts. The residents of Denver, Colorado are exposed to 50 mSv a year just by living there. So the amount of radiation detected in that video is the equivalent of spending less than six months in Denver, or getting 1/365th of a CT scan per day.

This is a negligible amount of radiation overall.

It's hardly enough to increase a person's risk of cancer.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nithaiah
This is a negligible amount of radiation overall.

It's hardly enough to increase a person's risk of cancer.


As always, people just don't get it. It's not about the dose, it's about the particles.

The measurement is a signpost to tell you that there are lots of radioactive particles in that sample of rainwater. The danger is if one of those particles is of uranium or plutonium, and you later inhale it. One particle of plutonium can eventually kill you. All of its dose will be applied to a small portion of your lung over a long period of time, and congratulations, you have intractable lung cancer.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
News updates, April 11 2011 . (one month later)

Radiation Readings
Monitoring is ongoing by a variety of organizations:
TEPCO, IAEA, and MEXT,
among many others.
Radiation levels in most prefectures continue to hover at or slightly above background.
(For comparison, the average background rate is 0.05-0.1 microsieverts per hour.)
However, radiation dose rates in a few isolated areas are higher.
(maximum of 1.6 microsieverts per hour, most of which are inside the zone already ordered to evacuate or take shelter.)
Yukio Edano named these locations:
Katsuo, Kawamata, Namie, Iitate, and Minami Soma,
(maximum of 1.6 microsieverts per hour)
The dose rates reported by the IAEA in these areas have a
maximum of 1.6 microsieverts per hour.
For comparison, the average background rate is 0.05-0.1 microsieverts per hour.
--------------------
and now Oklahoma u.s.a.,,5 months later.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Observer99
 


The science is not with you on that.

There are more important and immediate things to fear.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nithaiah
reply to post by Observer99
 


The science is not with you on that.

There are more important and immediate things to fear.



In March, 2011, Professor Cohen stated, reflecting on his study and it's controversial findings that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects and reduce the risks of cancer, "There is evidence on both sides. Whether low-level radiation is protective against cancer, a theory called radiation hormesis, is debated in the scientific community. Furthermore, "...[on his viewpoint, and its' support found in his exhaustive studies] it could go further and say that no confounding factors (like socio-economic, geography, ethnicity, medical care access, and beyond 500 explored in the analysis) can explain the results. However, my study was designed to test the assumption that the danger of radiation is simply proportional to the radiation dose, which is the only evidence that low-level radiation may be harmful. My conclusion was that that assumption is false.".[1][4][8] Reputable scientists disagree about that;[9][10] the debate is far from over. Given the uncertain effects of low-level radiation, there is a pressing need for good quality research in this area.[11]

Subsequent research would join a profound array of positions including a 1982 United Nations' work-group study -UNSCEAR- concluding: "There appear to be no nonspecific effects from low doses of radiation that result in a shortening of the life span."[12]

yaaa yippie,, Ann Colter was right

ALL safe u.n says so,,
ohh and dr. Cohen,, maybe then he could move there,, too study up close and personal,,,,

i didnt think so,,



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by nithaiah
 


1996 Walter H. Zinn Award

from the American Nuclear Society (ANS), to recognize him "for a notable and sustained contribution to the nuclear power industry that has not been widely recognized.

dr. Cohen,, wouldn't be a bit biased you think???????????
edit on 8-8-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Claim of radiation benefits barely passes X-ray test for truth', referring to comments made by commentator Ann Coulter; March 23, 2011; The Oregonian (daily)p.A2;Portland, Oregon; email reply by B.L. Cohen politifact.com... Retrieved 03-23-2011



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Ann Coulture, Now there's a lady who loves her fellow man

not



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by vermonster
 


Is that geiger counter from walmart? Looks like an Ipod app to me.

And we have a winner! It is a fake radiation detector app like this: itunes.apple.com...

Good catch.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
first his meter is set on microsieverts(mcSv)
this is 1000 times lower then millisieverts(mSv)
this is 1000,000 times lower one sieverts(Sv/)

1 Sv=100 rems

if you eat a banana every day is equivalent to 3.6 mrem per year.
Maximum allowable exposure for U.S. radiation workers 50Sv/yr

You are exposed in a CT scan to about 15 mSv

Now to cover the video rain absorbs radon gas and will absorb radioactive dust from coal fired power plants.

you have 6 coal fired power plants within 150 miles of Oklahoma City.


www.blackcatsystems.com...


According to my research (oxford journals), for radon gas at 200 Bq.m^-3 , the estimated dose is 4uSv.

Forgive me but did the sensor say it was radon gas or are you just blowing it off as that without any evidence whatsoever. It's amazing that you know the readings are from coal fired plants and that despite the Fukushima fallout evidence (even proven detected Fukushima fallout in European nations) you still discount that possibility? Sorry I like to stay open to possibilities until solid evidence can prove something either way.

And honestly, the odds are that there is a mix of different materials in that rain causing the radioactive readings to jump by 7 to 8 times base levels.

Also comparing a CT scan to being exposed to radioactive material is out of context and I am kind of getting tired of having to correct it.

A CT scanner has the radioactive isotopes contained and sealed up, you never come into contact with the material and it never enters your body, you are only exposed to the radiation emitted by that material briefly.

But when it rains and the rain is contaminated with radioactive material, that means everything gets the material on it and inside of it. That leads to internal exposure to radiation for long duration of time as the materials get trapped inside the body for long periods.

A more accurate comparison would be "If you broken open the containment vessel of the CT scanner, took out some of the material, mixed it in with water and then took a shower in it".

What are the goals of that post anyways? Justifying exposing everyone to radiation arbitrarily without their consent?

I eat like one or two bananas a year honestly.
I am not a radiation worker.
And I refuse to get Xrays or CT scans...

So why is it ok that there is radioactive material in the rain, who cares where it came from, it's illegal exposure.

The only level acceptable to me is zero contamination of my rain water. It's a crime against not only human rights but also the rights of all plants and animals to have safe reproduction of their dna .



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Guys, we haven't had rain in months. It doesn't surprise me that there would be a ton of undesirable stuff in the atmosphere above the state because there has been no rain to clean it since god knows when, probably May. I'm farther south than OKC and we've gotten less rain than them. You want something to worry about, worry about all our crops dying and all the farmers not turning a profit this year because we've had to feed cattle or sell them before time.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by vermonster
 


Is that geiger counter from walmart? Looks like an Ipod app to me.

And we have a winner! It is a fake radiation detector app like this: itunes.apple.com...

Good catch.


Bad catch, both of you are wrong and you obviously didn't bother to do any research.

It is clearly a SOEKS Geiger Counter.

Look : You can Buy them on Ebay

They look the exact same as the one in the OP video. Exactly.
They are both SOEKS "Ecotesters". You can see it clearly in the video multiple times.

It is not an Ipod app, how the hell would you even think that??

What is the nuclear industry brainwashing everyone to think all Geiger counters are Fake now????



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by vermonster
 


Every day it rains, I think of the hot particles released from Fukushima and wonder if they're falling down with the rain.

Guess they are...



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nithaiah
As someone has already stated, the microsievert is an incredibly SMALL measure of radiation.

Having done some simple math (on the highest number I saw watching the video, 1.62 microsieverts) if that person was exposed to that dose for an entire year, it would come out to 14.19 millisieverts. A CT scan is 20 millisieverts. The residents of Denver, Colorado are exposed to 50 mSv a year just by living there. So the amount of radiation detected in that video is the equivalent of spending less than six months in Denver, or getting 1/365th of a CT scan per day.

This is a negligible amount of radiation overall.

It's hardly enough to increase a person's risk of cancer.



So it is ok if I take one dollar from you? Just one dollar $.
It's an incredibly small amount, it won't hurt you economically that bad.
See why you won't give me a dollar? It's the principal of the matter, not the amount.

It is illegal to expose people to dangerous toxins without their consent.

And the residents of Denver are obviously exposed to more than 50mSv a year now! More like 55 mSv or more since we have additional materials introducing additional radiation into the area.

Also you are out of context. The people in Denver are exposed to natural background radiation, they are not being contaminated with more amounts of materials than anyone else in general. Having fallout in the rain means there are actual radioisotope particles within the rain water. H2O + all this other junk.

Having actual radioisotopes contaminate your ecosystem and the interior of your body is far far worse than "background radiation due to altitude". It causes you to be exposed to Even More radiation now, and the majority of it is internal thus harming your DNA chain.

Hey man it's cool if you don't mind having radioactive materials inside your body because you don't care about your DNA, but I care about my DNA and I will not stand for being exposed to this crap, I am trying to avoid contamination if possible.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Muzzle,

Radioactive Xenon 133, 10th May, S-E Asia


Radioactive Xenon 133, 9th May, North American continent


Radioactive Xenon 133, 27th March, UK and Central Europe (having already gone over Nth American continent)


Radioactive iodine 131, 23rd April, North American Continent


I have more...you guys can work out the dosages and half-lives.

Sorry.
edit on 8-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


Oh forgot everybodys friend

Radioactive Cesium 137, 26th April, Leaving North American continent on it's way to Europe...did anyone say mystery e.coli bug in Europe? I say radiation poisoning.

edit on 8-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome

However, radiation dose rates in a few isolated areas are higher.
(maximum of 1.6 microsieverts per hour, most of which are inside the zone already ordered to evacuate or take shelter.)
Yukio Edano named these locations:
Katsuo, Kawamata, Namie, Iitate, and Minami Soma,
(maximum of 1.6 microsieverts per hour)
The dose rates reported by the IAEA in these areas have a
maximum of 1.6 microsieverts per hour.
For comparison, the average background rate is 0.05-0.1 microsieverts per hour.
--------------------
and now Oklahoma u.s.a.,,5 months later.


Good find Bob, thank you.

This means that we have been underestimating the distance this stuff can travel, in my opinion.
(If indeed the Oklahoma City reading is true and in the event that at least some of the materials are from Fukushima).

This is all speculative without further data to corroborate it.

However, the odds seem to be in favor of such a scenario honestly. Also add in the other sources such as coal fired plant exhaust, etc. So that's why I said there is probably a nice mix of materials (possibly from various sources).

I have a really good next post. Formulating it now.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
1.6 uSv per hour = 14,016 uSv per year.
(1.6x24x365 = 14,016)

Using the calculator, at hptech.org, that 14016 micro sieverts is 1.4 rem.
(For a whole year).

According to the NRC.gov Website we are exposed to roughly 620 millirem per year, or .62 rem (Average).

So due to the contamination of the rain, Oklahoma City has over double, almost triple the amount of radiation as the accepted averages. These averages are including things like medical procedures (which I am never exposed to), industry (we are all exposed to), consumer products (only some people are exposed),

The natural sources account for only .31 rem. Which is less than 1/5th of the reading in Oklahoma City.

We are talking around 5x the natural background radiation exposure averages here. Pretty startling and upsetting, to be frank about it.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


Thank you for posting those graphs to give an idea of how vast of a contamination problem we are facing potentially.

However one problem is that I cannot find any up to date graphs showing what the computer models expect to see today, August 8th.

In fact I haven't seen any new graphs in several months, kind of odd.

If you find anything let me know, I am really interested to see the newest models. I wonder if they have decreased in severity or increased? Considering that there is no cap on Fukushima yet, and it is continually spewing more materials into the environment, I assume that it is steadily increasing the amounts of material in the atmosphere.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join