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.

 

Radioactive Seaweed Being Sold in SK...Video Included!

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
You might want to think twice before consuming seaweed or anything from the ocean after you see this. This person in SK got a reading on his geigo-counter and purchased it then took it home. The reading more than triples once he puts the geigo-counter up to it.

No more Sushi Rolls for me! The sad thing is that seaweed is supposed to help protect against radiation.



This leads me to wonder what else is radioactive, if not everything. I saw another thread where the member mentions radioactive seaweed in WA.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And of course this reminds us of the non stop debris that's hitting the west coast.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 5-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


It's hard to tell if this is normal, you'd need to test a 1000 samples to see the whats really going on here.

Having said that, the levels shown are less than what you're exposed to from a CT scan.

You would have to eat tonnes of the stuff to have any effect, although, that's besides the point really.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I see where you're coming from, and I agree. My concern is that things are most likely a lot worse than they are letting on. I'm in direct way of this current and jet stream and I don't fancy a permanent x-ray.

Plus I love seafood



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Having said that, the levels shown are less than what you're exposed to from a CT scan.

You would have to eat tonnes of the stuff to have any effect, although, that's besides the point really.




A CT scan 500 times stronger than an X-ray.

www.time.com...

Besides, if the Seaweed contains radiation and you eat it. Your body might put the radioactive material in your bones and you'll continue getting radiation exposure....until you die.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


It's hard to tell if this is normal, you'd need to test a 1000 samples to see the whats really going on here.

Having said that, the levels shown are less than what you're exposed to from a CT scan.

You would have to eat tonnes of the stuff to have any effect, although, that's besides the point really.



lol,

and this extra radiation is good for you I suppose too?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


I never said it was.

I just put it into perspective.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Why didn't he test the seaweed out of the bag?
What if we're only seeing the radiation of the plastic bag?

I'd heard that seaweed and kelp can protect you from radiation and I've also heard that taking a bath in sea salt can pull radiation out of your system, so him not testing the actual seaweed by itself is not a factual conclusion that this seaweed is not safe to consume.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


It sounds like you're mildly suggesting that it's a hoax, and it's possible. If this isn't a hoax then the reading would be stronger if he opened the bag, perhaps he is concerned for his safety.

I do know many other poducts have reached the shelves even though they were radiated, including baby formula. You skeptics crack me up sometime


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this is the real deal. I'm going to write his YouTube and tell him to open the bag to see if that makes a difference. I'm sure some of you still wouldn't be satisfied though.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Well, I am cautioned to take this with a grain of salt because it does contradict other information that I've found reliable. It makes me wonder why the guy mentions that the seaweed is still in the bag, but then never removes it to test it by itself. So, this tells me that he was indeed thinking about testing the seaweed alone, but never went that one step further. Why not?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


What information is it contradicting? As I said it's a known fact that radiated products are hitting the shelves, I even provided a mainstream link about the baby formula.

Do you doubt that claim too?

Please tell me how known contamination that has been admitted and proven to exist contradicts "reliable" info you have come across

Patiently waiting...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
There's one in every thread!

Everytime guaranteed.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Please don't treat me as though I'm a paid shill. You know I'm not.
As far as I can see from this video, the plastic bag is radioactive. I don't doubt the baby food is because it's not made of seaweed or kelp.
I'm doubting the video maker's analysis because he even mentions that the seaweed out of the bag might register differently, yet never tests the seaweed alone.
Why do I have to get attacked because this guy didn't cover all his bases? If you're going to say that something is contaminated with radiation, you have to test the item itself.
If this video was titled "Plastic bag containing seaweed tests positive for radiation", I'd agree with this. The fact is is that the seaweed itself is never tested.
Show me the seaweed tested by itself and I'll be satisfied.
The video maker did not do his due diligence. Period.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Wasn't attacking you, I only wanted more information on how you reached your conclusion. I would have also liked him to open the bag.

Do you think the bag was contaminated in SK or Japan. I'm not very knowledgeable in the absorbtion of radiation into other substances. I assumed this was coming from inside the bag not from the plastic itself.

If the bag is 3 times more radiated than the background wouldn't the contents be as well? If this is from when and where it was packaged, then it's just as bad, it means that everything coming out of that factory is radiated. We already know the seaweed in WA is radioactive so I imagine it's even worse in the East sea of Japan.

I promise that I wasn't attacking you but I did feel you were being overly skeptic. That's fine it's good to be skeptic, it's just that it's as if you forgot about the whole Japan nuclear emergency and that you have difficulties believing that seaweed coming from Japan could be radioactive.

I appreciate the replies even if I don't agree with you completely. Sorry for bad grammar and sentence structure as I'm typing on my phone.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


It's all good. I try to ask as many questions as possible and I was thoroughly let down when the video ended without the seaweed being tested by itself. I would've been interested to see if it registered higher or lower than the bag. If I were this guy, after testing the bag containing the seaweed, I'd have taken the seaweed out of the bag and tested it, then tested the bag alone.

I can't say for sure where and when the bag became contaminated, but my best guess would be Japan.

Another question I have is if radiation attaches to seaweed, does it remain on it for a shorter period of time compared to other objects. If it's true that seaweed and kelp protect against radiation, maybe when it becomes exposed, it takes some time before it can register clean. For example, if the plastic bag is registering a 7 and the seaweed is registering at 6. If you waited a couple of weeks and tested both again individually, would the bag still be registering at 7, while the seaweed had time to expel the readiation and would register at a 4 or 5?

I have a lot of questions that I'd like answers to and I do realize that it takes time to understand everything. I just felt that this guy could've done a much more thorough job than he did.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


I found the original author. His user name is joytek311. Search that name on YT and plenty more vids.

This one he opens the bag




It appears to get the same reading.

Either the seaweed contaminated the bag or vice versa.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
To compare the radiation to a CT scan is disingenious to say the least.
1) No extra radiation is good for you. In fact in the leaflet put out by the UK NHS they acknowledge that having a mammogram actually CAUSES some cancers.
2) The radiation from X rays, CT scans etc cannot be compared to CONSUMED food. Even more so if that food is consumed regularly.
Irrespective of any YouTube videos, I won't be consuming any Japanese products anytime soon. Nor will I be eating fish from the Pacific.
edit on 5-1-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


A huge thanks for hunting down and posting a video with the seaweed sans the bag.


I'm still not satisfied with his testing technique, but maybe he'll read this thread and post a video with a step by step (1. Counter top, 2. Bag containing seaweed, 3. Seaweed alone, 4. Bag alone, 5. Rinse and repeat two weeks later).

This video is interesting and I'd have to agree that the seaweed is radioactive. But (I know, there's always a 'but'), I'd liked to have seen if an 8 registered when the seaweed was in the bag. I'd have also liked to have seen the bag far away from the seaweed instead of being placed underneath it during the testing. Another thing I don't understand is how quickly the geiger counter went from 8 to 5.?. When it started to do this, he immediately stopped the test. Is this showing how seaweed expels the radiation once it is removed from radioactive packaging?

I hope he makes more videos. I'd like to see them be more thorough and closer to a scientific protocol than he's currently demonstrating, but I'm happy to see at least someone is testing items and posting the videos. I'd just like to see a cleaner and more precise testing conducted. So, if he sees this thread, please get more packaged samples and video tape them according to a step by step method mentioned above. Thank you for doing what you're doing.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


I will be home shortly and will try to get a hold of Joytek and link him to this thread. You did raise some interesting points with other variables in the test and now I'm also curious. I should get my own Geiger-counter because there are some local tests I would like to try.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


That would be great!

I hope he responds and comes onto the thread to discuss.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by starchild10
To compare the radiation to a CT scan is disingenious to say the least.
1) No extra radiation is good for you. In fact in the leaflet put out by the UK NHS they acknowledge that having a mammogram actually CAUSES some cancers.
2) The radiation from X rays, CT scans etc cannot be compared to CONSUMED food. Even more so if that food is consumed regularly.
I wouldn't call it disingenuous, as I think the poster had good intentions to put it in perspective.

However I agree that being exposed to external radiation sources like flying in a plane, or getting an X-ray or CT scan have a limited effect for the duration of the exposure.

In contrast, there is always a possibility that ingested or inhaled radioactive particles can find a home somewhere inside the body, continuing to expose tissue to radiation for as long as the half-life of the radioactive material permits.

I haven't bought anything from the ocean since March 2011. This is partly due to my good fortune that I happened to already have a freezer full of fish when the incident occurred, and I would only eat a limited amount of fish even before March 2011 due to concentrations of other toxic materials which accumulate in fish. So when you only eat limited amounts, a freezer full lasts a pretty long time. I'm not saying everything from the Pacific is dangerous to eat, I'm pretty sure that's not true. However it would have been nice to see a little more testing on fish immediately after the disaster, just to be sure. By now I suspect the risk has diminished, and I'm going to have to restock my freezer in the not too distant future.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join