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.

 

Benjamin Fulford says no Radiation in Japan:

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Are you saying this video is hoaxed?


You must have not Read my post at all.


Where would all that radiation come from on this little drive through Fukushima Prefecture?


Iodine 131 decaying into Xenon 131, Duh.

I just got done saying that.


No where in your list is "Fukushima" as a source of radiation.


It's in the link... but I must warn you... the video that you posted was from April... and it is September.


Now, keeping that information in mind... Re Read my post.

And then Re Read it Again, and Again, and Again... until what I actually *SAID* sticks to some of the neurons in your brain.

Thank you for your cooperation, and have a nice day.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

The most common sources of radiation are from the Decay of Potassium 40, Carbon 14, and cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere.



"Common"? Isn't that subjective?
Anyhow, that may have been true last year.

But since Fukushima happened it isn't true anymore.

If the average background rates are .4 - .7 uSv /hr and now we are getting readings of 1 to 10 uSv /hr that means that roughly 50% (half) to 90% of these readings is not "normal background" and therefore is very likely from nuclear pollution, exempli gratia: Fukushima.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Iodine 131 decaying into Xenon 131, Duh.
.


What you said is misrepresented and intended to downplay the severity of the issue.

What about isotopes of Strontium ? Americium? Cesium? Plutonium?

Oh yeah, lets not mention those because their half lives are from years to millions of years.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Background dose per day = 10?


Yes.


10 / 24 = .416 uSv /hr (This is what the NRC and EPA claim is the average background rate as well).


Yeah.......


Then you put in a bunch of BS which does not come up on Geiger counters. Totally misleading.


Are you feeling ok?


I haven't seen any readings of people sleeping together, these readings were outside on the rainwater or atmosphere.


What?


I don't see anyone using a Gieger on bananas on the videos.


Seriously, man.... what is wrong with you?

Maybe you should see a doctor?


Coal plant .3uSv / yr = .0000034 uSv / hr (.3 / 365 / 24 = .0000034)
No ones' taking reading of CRT monitors outside in rainwater are they?


What are you even talking about?


I asked "where is the radiation readings coming from?" and you reply with "Airplane flight from NY to LA"??? What the hell kind of answer is this? You aren't even thinking about what you post are you?


This is the first time we have actually had a discussion, and I don't remember you actually asking me any questions, I was just adding some information about radiation and common doses, and now you are attacking me?

Why?


No one is taking readings of architectural materials, we were talking about rainwater and atmospheric samples.


Seriously, man... See a Doctor.


Potassium "in the body", how does this give readings outside the body? Hmm.


See a Doctor *IMMEDIATELY!!!*


I don't think anyone is taking readings of women's breasts, mammograms? That's not in the videos I watched at least. And not in the one I linked above. How does a Chest CT scan cause a meter reading the atmosphere or water samples to show high activity?


The Information I put down about radiation sources was for comparative purposes... you know?

So that we could place the "1-10 uSv/hour" into a proper context?

DOCTOR!!! NOW!!!


You whole post is either misinformation or disinformation sorry. You never bothered to answer the question with any legitimacy.


You never asked me a question.

Seriously... You need medical attention.


You even debunked yourself, you provided information that claims the average background radiation dose is .4 uSv per hour. These readings shown all over youtube (countless videos) are showing readings from 1 to 10 uSv per hour. Up to 20 times higher than your source claims....How is this possible???


And where did I ever say anything that was contrary to that?

How *EXACTLY* did I debunk myself?


Dare I say, Fukushima??


I don't see why.... what in gods name are you even talking about?


You can't claim Coal plants either. Your own source shows coal only accounts for .0000034 uSv/hr and I am talking about 1 to 10 uSv /hr.


Dude... Relax... just Chill.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
EPA .gov


How does technetium-99 get into the environment?

Most Tc-99 in the environment comes from a few sources:
the detonation of nuclear weapons (especially atmospheric weapons tests)
nuclear reactor airborne emissions
nuclear fuel reprocessing plant airborne emissions
facilities that treat or store radioactive waste.

Extremely small amounts of Tc-99 have entered the environment near a few radioactive waste disposal sites.


I could go on all day showing this type of information. But it will be ignored as usual.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



"Common"? Isn't that subjective?


No, it's an average.


Anyhow, that may have been true last year.


And it still is, if you look at it as an average.


But since Fukushima happened it isn't true anymore.


If you happen to live inside the power-plant, then I would agree with you....


If the average background rates are .4 - .7 uSv /hr and now we are getting readings of 1 to 10 uSv /hr that means that roughly 50% (half) to 90% of these readings is not "normal background" and therefore is very likely from nuclear pollution, exempli gratia: Fukushima.


What exactly are you arguing here?

I came into this thread to provide some examples of normal amounts of radiation doses....

What is with all of the hostility?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


I asked a question.


How do they explain all of the countless youtube videos showing high readings from 1-10 uSv per hour?


And you replied with a list of BS explanations, none of which are accurate or logical.
You quoted my question and then preceded to answer with this list of "sources" none of which explain any type of answer to my question.

Now maybe you can understand why I debunked them.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



What you said is misrepresented and intended to downplay the severity of the issue.


How so?


What about isotopes of Strontium ? Americium? Cesium? Plutonium?


Those have long half lives... and will be dispersed before they can release much of their energy....


Oh yeah, lets not mention those because their half lives are from years to millions of years.


Yes, and that means that they take millions of times longer to release their radiation.


Go read some material on radiation, and decay... you might learn something.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


No "common" is subjective in the manner you used it.

Yes it is defined as "average" or "normal" but you used it in a manner to suggest that all of your suggestions were the correct ones. It was used subjectively as an opinion, not as a fact.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


Those have long half lives... and will be dispersed before they can release much of their energy....


Dispersion is Bad.

It means that instead of being contained into one spot (easy to avoid), it is now spread out all over the place everywhere so that everyone is exposed to it now (impossible to avoid).

Dispersion is far worse than concentration. It means that I am being exposed, you are too!

If it were concentrated no one would be exposed. Get it?

You keep debunking your original intentions of downplaying it by showing exactly why it's a very bad issue.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



I asked a question.


How do they explain all of the countless youtube videos showing high readings from 1-10 uSv per hour?


I'm sure that at the time of the accident, that radiation levels were that high... but that was almost half a year ago.


And you replied with a list of BS explanations


I wasn't answering your question, I was adding information to the thread, you have misinterpreted my purpose here.


none of which are accurate or logical.


I'm sure it looks that way if you are misunderstanding me....


You quoted my question and then preceded to answer with this list of "sources" none of which explain any type of answer to my question.


I was adding information to put your figure in the proper PERSPECTIVE.


Now maybe you can understand why I debunked them.


You didn't debunk anything... there was nothing there to debunk.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Don't tell me to go read about radiation in a condescending manner sir.

I have sufficiently debunked all of your claims. Every single one.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Yes you claimed that bananas and mammograms explain all of the youtube videos of geiger counter readings showing over 1 to 10 uSv / hr.

They were all debunked sir. If you cannot accept that , than you are not playing fair and debating with you is no better than yelling at a brick wall. Good day sir.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



No "common" is subjective in the manner you used it.


Common, as in Common to your average human being on the planet earth...


Common: Occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.


Seems pretty straightforward to me.


Yes it is defined as "average" or "normal" but you used it in a manner to suggest that all of your suggestions were the correct ones. It was used subjectively as an opinion, not as a fact.


They were not suggestions... they were additional Information to put the numbers you posted in PERSPECTIVE.

Comprehend this!!!!



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Dispersion is Bad.


No... dispersion is Good.


It means that instead of being contained into one spot (easy to avoid), it is now spread out all over the place everywhere so that everyone is exposed to it now (impossible to avoid).


It means that instead of having *DENSE* radiation, you now have *DIFFUSE* Radiation.

I don't think that you quite understand the mechanisms of radiation, the severity of the dose diminishes with distance from the source, and with a reduction in concentration.


Dispersion is far worse than concentration. It means that I am being exposed, you are too!


You have no idea how radiation works, I'm afraid...


If it were concentrated no one would be exposed. Get it?


Are you talking about being concentrated in a little radiation proof bottle?

Then yeah....

Or are you talking about it being concentrated to one city?

Then no.


You keep debunking your original intentions of downplaying it by showing exactly why it's a very bad issue.


You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying, and WHY I am saying it...



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


You ignored the actual math.

.4 to .7 is the offical accepted background reading average.

Readings in many many locations are above 1 to 10 uSv per hour.

This is from twice to 20 times the background rate.

I am putting things into perspective, you are trying to pretend that Fukushima didn't increase background levels at all when it is provable with detection equipment.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Dispersion is Bad.


No... dispersion is Good.


Wrong, containment (concentration) is good.

That means I can say "I am not going over there, I will avoid it".

But when it disperses everywhere, that means a thin film of it is put onto virtually everything! Including your body.

Do you not care about this? That you now almost certainly have twice to 20 times the amounts of nuclear contaminants on your actual body?

I know that is a major disappointment for me. I wanted to stay clean. I don't know about you.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Don't tell me to go read about radiation in a condescending manner sir.

I have sufficiently debunked all of your claims. Every single one.


I DIDN'T MAKE ANY CLAIMS!


Calm DOWN.


Yes you claimed that bananas and mammograms explain all of the youtube videos of geiger counter readings showing over 1 to 10 uSv / hr.


No, that is incorrect.

I *CLAIMED* that bananas and mammograms give you a dose of 0.1 uSv and 3,000 uSv respectivley.

And you are taking this DATA, as an attack?

Why?


They were all debunked sir. If you cannot accept that , than you are not playing fair and debating with you is no better than yelling at a brick wall. Good day sir.


They were not debunked.... it is TRUE that bananas and mammograms are a source of radiation.

Why are you disputing this?


edit on 18-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



you are trying to pretend that Fukushima didn't increase background levels at all when it is provable with detection equipment.


And where do you draw that conclusion from?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Wrong, containment (concentration) is good.


If it's contained, yes...

But it was not contained was it?

So you want it dispersed, don't you? So that there is less of it around you, right?

lol You are WAY too angry.....


But when it disperses everywhere, that means a thin film of it is put onto virtually everything! Including your body.


Dude, *YOU* are radioactive....

Right now, this very second.... You are radioactive.


Do you not care about this? That you now almost certainly have twice to 20 times the amounts of nuclear contaminants on your actual body?


And that is clearly an excavation.


I know that is a major disappointment for me. I wanted to stay clean. I don't know about you.


Stop being so scared.

It's not going to hurt you... it's mostly dispersed now.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join