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.
Are you saying this video is hoaxed?
Where would all that radiation come from on this little drive through Fukushima Prefecture?
No where in your list is "Fukushima" as a source of radiation.
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Iodine 131 decaying into Xenon 131, Duh.
.
Background dose per day = 10?
10 / 24 = .416 uSv /hr (This is what the NRC and EPA claim is the average background rate as well).
Then you put in a bunch of BS which does not come up on Geiger counters. Totally misleading.
I haven't seen any readings of people sleeping together, these readings were outside on the rainwater or atmosphere.
I don't see anyone using a Gieger on bananas on the videos.
Coal plant .3uSv / yr = .0000034 uSv / hr (.3 / 365 / 24 = .0000034)
No ones' taking reading of CRT monitors outside in rainwater are they?
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?
No one is taking readings of architectural materials, we were talking about rainwater and atmospheric samples.
Potassium "in the body", how does this give readings outside the body? Hmm.
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?
You whole post is either misinformation or disinformation sorry. You never bothered to answer the question with any legitimacy.
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???
Dare I say, Fukushima??
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.
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.
"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.
How do they explain all of the countless youtube videos showing high readings from 1-10 uSv per hour?
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Those have long half lives... and will be dispersed before they can release much of their energy....
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.
No "common" is subjective in the manner you used it.
Common: Occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by muzzleflash
Dispersion is Bad.
No... dispersion is Good.
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.
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.
you are trying to pretend that Fukushima didn't increase background levels at all when it is provable with detection equipment.
Wrong, containment (concentration) is good.
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.