Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Man Eats Uranium, Drinks and Swims In Reactor Water, Ignites Plutonium In His Bare Hand

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by KaiserSoze
 





Well, they were designed correctly, or so they thought at the time.


Still, they were designed and built well before Chernobyl. Safety was not as much in focus back then than in modern reactors. There are much safer, passively safe modern designs that would not melt down.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dookie Master
I am EXTREMELY skeptical about this one. He handled fissile material with his own hands and he lived? I just don't know if this is possible. All of the material mentioned is known to be extremely dangerous to DNA; it actually destroys it. But, there is this guy:

en.wikipedia.org...



Who here really knows, right?

The guy seems quite legit, and makes great sense into this nuclear argument why it's not being established in various cities and counties around the world. Not to mention, the stronghold that the US has when other nations equip themselves with nuclear/uranium technology. I think has MUCH more to do with countries self em"powering" themselves than it does to threatening attacks.

Just please STOP sourcing Wikipedia as a credible outlet for information when it comes to information that can threaten the global power structure.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Didn't the person who discovered radioactivity die of to much radiation? At some point your going to start to grow a few more body parts!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
men is now dead from leukemia so that just show it all radiation mite not kill u strait away but it will get u at some point .



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
dont forget Alexander Litvinenko death by a radioactive isotope called polonium. im sure anything that would set off a geiger counter aint good for ya !



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Is this the "Ionizing radiation" is ok thread? That must be why the X-ray technician leaves the room or why they cover nuclear cores with water that huge pumps circulate. Just in case...

You wouldn't want to be overexposed in case things "got out of control".



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I'm sorry but I just don't believe it...

It seems like something the Nuclear industry would propose..and it feels like a film produced from the same people who made "Duck and Cover", or a "Red Scare" film.

None of this is safe. However, it's not safe to eat airplane parts either, or its not safe to turn yourself into a human battery.. but there are people that do these things. Maybe this guy is just "special" and belongs in Guiness, if it's even true.

The "Nuclear Scare" is very real, and quite destructive.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Complete and utter rubbish. I'll make sure to avoid your website in future.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
Due to genetic diversity I expect there are some people with a higher tolerance to radioactive material compared to others, but there have been more than enough people cooked and deformed by this stuff to clearly indicate it is dangerous.


I was thinking the same thing.....Just like some people can smoke 4 packs a day, and live to be a hundred. Radiation exposure increases your risk of cancer....but it's probably not guaranteed you'll get it unless you're exposed to ridiculous amounts. Genetics are probably a key factor in whether you get cancer from exposure (with dumb luck, probably being another factor)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I bet he cant stand Kryptonite !



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by chadderson
I have long held the belief of mind over matter. And for instance i propose a theory. Those whom present themselves to the ultraviolet rays of our sun while stressed or depressed, will burn. Those with positive mindsets in the same circumstance, tan. Mind over matter exists, and our consciousness is the dictator.

EDIT: Same goes for sickness and disease. Stress causes problems with the immune system. Stress also causes cancer, the body fighting the source from the inside out.
edit on 27-6-2012 by chadderson because: (no reason given)


I just want to say that my nephew was 3 years old when he got cancer. You think he was worried about his paycheck or something? You think he just got too stressed at preschool?

Maybe he should have just had a positive attitude huh? Maybe instead of feeling sick he should have just said I am not going to let myself be taken down by cancer and willed it away?

I have heard the same dribble about religion and asking God to heal you. Tell you what, go down to the cancer center, in fact, have a shriner take you around to all the cancer centers and tell the patients what you told us here. I would add in that Jesus will take their cancer away if they just repent and pay their 10%.

I am sure you will be well received.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


I think the point was, if its not dangerous... then what happened at Chernobyl? How can it not be that dangerous, yet have caused all that damage there? And what about Fukushima?That looks like a total disaster for years to come as well.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by chadderson
I have long held the belief of mind over matter. And for instance i propose a theory. Those whom present themselves to the ultraviolet rays of our sun while stressed or depressed, will burn. Those with positive mindsets in the same circumstance, tan. Mind over matter exists, and our consciousness is the dictator.

EDIT: Same goes for sickness and disease. Stress causes problems with the immune system. Stress also causes cancer, the body fighting the source from the inside out.
edit on 27-6-2012 by chadderson because: (no reason given)


So happy kids that get a sun burn while building a sand castle at the beach are secretly stressed and/or depressed? Pigment, time of exposure and lack of sun blocking lotion not relevant?

Not buying this.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by chadderson
 


I guess my uncle who died of leukaemia as a child just didn't have a positive enough attitude, eh? Screw you and the people who starred you.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 




Genetics are probably a key factor in whether you get cancer from exposure (with dumb luck, probably being another factor)


Antineoplastons, or specific naturally occurring peptides also make a difference by turning on and off specific genes responsible for cancer. I know the FDA, AMA, Cancer Council and others do not want to admit it, but just goes with the territory in todays money hungry messed up world.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Yeah, i call bull on this one.

Perhaps we are forgetting the poisoning of the Russian Alexander Litvinenko? Killed by a tiny dose of polonium-210.

en.wikipedia.org...

This reminds me of the idiot Ann Coulter claiming two years ago that we should all receive regular doses of radiation.
edit on 28-6-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
well, if uranium isn't dangerous, what causes the "harmful effects" of said radiation when an atomic bomb detonates?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gwampo
well, if uranium isn't dangerous, what causes the "harmful effects" of said radiation when an atomic bomb detonates?

Ill take nuclear fission for $1000, Alex!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Watched some of the video, it was interesting. But he went way too far on saying how harmless it was. He said that it is harmless unless it's causing a critical mass or is causing a burning of the skin. This is nonsense, obviously, and I stopped watching after that, because cancer risk demonstrably increases much before the point that causes burning. The current most accepted theory is that cancer risk scales linearly with dose. For example, holding a brick of uranium would be fine (although to be accurate it would increase your risk of cancer by some almost infinitely small value), while drinking some Polonium-210 will kill you rather quickly. It depends.

I don't doubt his experiences though. Water that has been pumped from the reactors he was talking about (the now decommissioned ones at Hanford) used once-through cooling, the exhaust water was warm, about 100F, and somewhat radioactive, but it not extremely dangerous. It was pumped into the Colorado river after all. Plus many fissile isotopes are perfectly safe to handle with your hands, but it depends on what isotope is in question and if there are impurities. Also, fresh nuclear fuel is very safe to handle, whereas spent fuel is dangerous because it has accumulated things known as fission products and transuranic elements, which is why accidents are such a big fuss. Also, although his risk of cancer was likely increased by these experiences, it likely could of been more than offset by living healthily or simple luck that causing him to live to ~82. An increase in cancer risk is not a guarantee of getting cancer, after all.

A member comment that we engineered radiation. We did not. It's like fire, we can just use it in different ways that we choose. Fire has also caused some of the worst suffering this world has had to offer. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. Doesn't mean that turning on your gas stove is extremely dangerous in the same way as a napalm bomb exploding is. Doesn't mean a first degree burn is the same as a fourth degree burn. But they're both fire (or consequences of fire). I think the dangers are mostly overstated, as demonstrated by the comments to this thread doubting the experiences of the lecturer, and that we readily accept far greater risks to our lives, like cancer from eating too much processed food, and particulate pollution. I would like to see an increase in nuclear power too, since newer designs are much safer than older ones, and even though the risk of an accident still exists I think it's easily worth it for other benefits it brings.

Also, per tonne, nuclear waste has about 1 billion dollars worth energy remaining in it, if it were used up fully. Just find the molar mass of whatever fissile isotope you're talking about, assume that each fission is about 200 MeV of energy, that 35% of that energy is turned into electricity, and that it's sold for ~15 cents per kwh.

And the NRC regulates radiation not so much the EPA. I'm not convinced it is over-regulated, many problems in the past with regard to delays building reactors due to regulations were mainly due to new regulations necessitating design changes half-way through construction, or intervenors causing delays to them. But both are fixed now because more is known now and a new licencing scheme. Plus new designs like those being built in Georgia and South Carloina are much safer.
edit on 28/6/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 28/6/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrUncreated
Really? I have one word for you: Chernobyl.
I don't care if you can eat it or swim in it. If a meltdown can cause an incident like that, keep it the hell away from me, please.


wow. to post something like that, you have to be collecting a pay check.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join