FukuGate: We've been conned

page: 6
105
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 

Read that link again. The decay path of the particle of PU is only on the order of 55 microns. That is to short for a "geiger counter" to pick up. That is another reason why it is so insidious. Geiger counters detect decay paths of more energetic particles like gamma rays that travel longer distances. Alpha and Beta rays are much shorter and are only really harmful when they get inside of the human body. You would need to get one of those full body scans that detect "whole body dose" to detect wether you had any hot particles in your tissue. Those are expensive by the way and don't remove any radioactive elements or stop you from ingesting new ones.

Look at it like this. Once these radioactively contaminated particles embed in the body, they resemble a mini machine gun firing in all directions. These "bullets" are fired into living cells. Some cells are destroyed and die, some heal and the next time they divide may mutate which gives rise to incidents of cancer. The bodies immune system fights that as well as discarding some toxins from itself. The problem is that some of these radioactive elements also appear like food to cells so are readily absorbed. There they sit during our lifetime irradiating nearby cells. Once deep in the bone they are not readily "cast off" but influence the auto-immune systems of the body in a negative fashion, making us more susceptible to disease. You don't die of "radiation poisoning" at this level, you die of other stuff, like aids patients.

Yes, it takes years to get cancers, yes the body throws off some of these "hot particles", but they will build up and cause more of a problem as time goes on. They "live" much longer than you do and they are working their way around the planet 24/7, in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat.

A bomb detonates and and is done. There are relatively few isotopes left to be picked up by detectors these days. They are still detected though. The difference between a bomb is that once it goes bang it is over. The fallout is a one time event. A nuclear reactor core meltdown goes on and on... and on. The mass of still hot corium at the bottom of these plants is still fissioning and still emitting radioactive elements to the environment. Less and less as they cool, yah, but...

Most everything I just said is also in here, read it again.

www.animatedsoftware.com...

edit on 27-10-2012 by intrptr because: spelling




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Wind of Change





Sec.line



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 

Sorry dude, my "bum" is shut in your direction.
:



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


thanks for taking the time to write that out, i get so tired of attempting to educate people on the many facets of radiation exposure.

zomg!!!! blah blah blah you guys are fear mongering that dose of radiation wont hurt anyone.


if they only knew.....

every bit of the longer half life isotopes we take in, are cumulative and although they may seem harmless on a day to day basis they can and do affect our lives down the road. it is estimated that the cesium 137 released from Fuku will be raining on us all for 60 years or more and that's if the leakage stopped today.

anyway i'm done with this thread because frankly i have said all i can on the subject and those with a genuine interest in finding the truth of Fukushima, have the tools to do that now.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Explanation: They have no need to as I have done that already ...

Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die (note only OmegaLogos posts) [ATS]

And I shall quote myself ...


Ok then 7% is way lower than 100% ... so lets recalibrate and just focus on the plutonium in the mox fuel.

So whats 7% of 35.25 quadrillion??? = 2469078015000000 atoms ... That's still about 2.5 [rnded up] QUADRILLION atoms of plutonium... per person!

Ok now... lets use your data on 50micrograms per kilo of body weight and average body weight of 80kg.

That means 4milligrams [of plutonium] is enuff to definately kill a single person.

Now 244grams of plutonium was 1 MOLE of plutonium and was

= Avogadro's No# in atoms ie 6.0221415 × 10^23 atoms

/ 244 = 2468090778688524590164 [rnded up] atoms of plutonium per 1gram

/ 1000 = 2468090778688524590 [rnded down] atoms of plutonium per 1milligram

x 4 = 9872363114754098360 [as is] atoms is required to kill a single person GARANTEED!

Now ....

7kg / 0.004g = 1750000 [rnded down] 100% lethal doses in 7kg of plutonium [7% of the MOX fuel remember]

7billion people / 1750000 100% fully lethal doses = 1 in 4000 chance of dying.

Thats an increase in chance of dying of 50000 times compared with the 31 chernobyl deaths. [ie 1 in 200 million]

Thats 5million % increase in chance of DEATH [per person] at the maximum for just the plutonium in the mox fuel.

2211474285432690280000000000 cubic metres of atmosphere AND ocean [(8.5km x earth entire surface area) + (3.79km x earths entire oceanic surface area.) note: both sourced from WIKI and everything converted to cubic meters [a billion fold increase]]

= 0.008 [rnded up] atoms of plutonium [spread evenly throughout the WHOLE atmosphere]

PER 1 cubic metre [ie 1m^3] of atmosphere ... Thats 1 atom of plutonium per ever 5mtrs^3 [ie. 125 cubic metres].

**************************************************************************


So I reduced that maximum extreme ballpark figure from 35.25 quadrillion fold increase per person down to a far more reasonable [? ] 50000 increase in chance of death from plutonium worldwide.

I also showed that if it was ubiquitously spread everywhere it would be inescapable!!!


And ...


Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Explanation: St*rred!


(San Francisco) – Physics Professor Paolo Scampa announced March 23, 2011 that the four destroyed reactors at Fukushima, Japan was about 70 Billion Lethal Doses, finely divided. Professor Scampa used only official IAEA data (International Atomic Energy Agency).

According to the US Census Bureau, there are approximately 6 Billion, 907 Million people on Earth today.

The wrecked General Electric nuclear reactors contained enough radioactive, highly poisonous fuel to kill every person on Earth about 10 times.

The poison is in the atmosphere and spreading all over the world from Japan in 9 to 10 days.
www.infiniteunknown.net...




Now ....

7kg / 0.004g = 1750000 [rnded down] 100% lethal doses in 7kg of plutonium [7% of the MOX fuel remember]

7billion people / 1750000 100% fully lethal doses = 1 in 4000 chance of dying.

Thats an increase in chance of dying of 50000 times compared with the 31 chernobyl deaths. [ie 1 in 200 million]


Thats the difference between 100kg [7kg of plutonium] and the entire power plants entire nuclear fuel load plus all the extra stored nuclear waste material etc.

Its a 40000 times difference between my worst case scenerio and the absolute maximum worse case scenerio.

Thanks for providing linked information that my maths estimate was well within the ball park of whats possible!

Personal Disclosure: And thanks also for providing weather simulations etc.




Personal Disclosure: And there is no safe level ...

No 'safe' threshold for radiation: experts (by Anna Salleh Thursday, 31 March 2011) [abc.net.au]


Dose and effect
But on the question of whether there is a safe threshold for exposure to radioactivity, Burns agrees with Ruff.

"There is no level below which we believe radiation effects can't occur," says Burns.

He says the oft-cited effect 'threshold' of 100 millisieverts comes from the most statistically-significant results from studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb survivors.


PLEASE READ FULL STORY!



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


i get so tired of attempting to educate people on the many facets of radiation exposure.

I get that. The ones that dismiss info out of hand regardless aren't worth your time. They will continue to do that. Kind of like getting to close to a skunk. They don't care what you have to say, they're just gonna spray you...

I worked on the ATS Fukushima thread for a time but it became too depressing and I had to stop. Now i come to new threads here and there about it and bring some data in spite of what some people have to say. I understand how justifiably angry some people are about this. They alternately are abusive and then in the next breath ask a pertinent question. They are reachable. That last post I made was in response to that poster and in a wider sense, anyone else that has the time to read it.

I see you doing the same thing, good job. Don't stop doing that, despite the smell.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 

Thank you OmegaLogos.
The cavalry has arrived in the nick of time...



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



Read that link again. The decay path of the particle of PU is only on the order of 55 microns. That is to short for a "geiger counter" to pick up. That is one reason why it is so insidious. Geiger counters detect decay paths of more energetic particles like gamma rays that travel long distances. Alpha and Beta rays are much shorter and are onlt really harmful when they get inside of the human body. You would need to get one of those full body scans that detect "whole body dose" to detect wether you had any hot particles in your tissue. Those are expensive by the way and don't remove any radioactive elements or stop you from ingesting new ones.


So you are saying the air is actually full of deadly Pu particles, but we just can't detect them.

That doesn't prove they are there.

So what do you base your claims on, if you can't even detect them?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by intrptr
 


thanks for taking the time to write that out, i get so tired of attempting to educate people on the many facets of radiation exposure.

zomg!!!! blah blah blah you guys are fear mongering that dose of radiation wont hurt anyone.


if they only knew.....

every bit of the longer half life isotopes we take in, are cumulative and although they may seem harmless on a day to day basis they can and do affect our lives down the road. it is estimated that the cesium 137 released from Fuku will be raining on us all for 60 years or more and that's if the leakage stopped today.

anyway i'm done with this thread because frankly i have said all i can on the subject and those with a genuine interest in finding the truth of Fukushima, have the tools to do that now.



You said that your 6-8 times background radiation measurement was proof of a health risk, I said it wasn't. Nothing you have said has refuted my claims, or proven your own claim, and what the other poster said, also doesn't back up your exact claim.

Now you are just back pedaling, acting like the other poster said something to back up your claims, which he didn't.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


So you are saying that his claim that 6-8 times the level of background radiation is dangerous, is correct?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


First off, it was cherry picked statistics. It's half truths and outright lies.

Second, radiation is virtually everywhere. It's a lie to say there is no "safe" dose.

Third, your figure of 50 micrograms per kg of bodyweight is absurdly low:


The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,065 years. This half-life is short enough that 1 microgram of material will undergo more than 2000 decay events per second, but it is long enough to allow that microgram to decay at an approximately constant rate for thousands of years. If plutonium had uranium’s half-life of 4 billion years, there would be so few decays over the span of a human’s lifetime that the radiological toxicity of plutonium would be much less severe.3 However, that is not the case. No humans have ever died from acute toxicity due to plutonium uptake.4 Nevertheless, lethal doses5 have been estimated from research on dogs, rats, and mice. Animal studies indicate that a few milligrams of plutonium per kilogram of tissue is a lethal dose. For example, the LD50(30) for dogs after intravenous injection of plutonium is about 0.32 milligram per kilogram of tissue. Assuming this animal dose also applies to humans, an LD50(30) by intravenous injection for an average human of 70 kilograms would be about 22 milligrams. By inhalation, the uptake would have to be about 4 times higher.
Link to PDF

So it would take approximately 88milligrams for a 70kg human being to have a 50/50 chance of dying by inhalation. Assuming that a part would be ingested rather than inhaled, we could come up with a more reasonable figure of greater than 88mg...perhaps 100mg. Another fair assumption is that the vast majority wouldn't even make it into the food chain; rather it would be deposited in areas that weren't arable land, and wasn't specifically used as a food production source.


Currently the total arable land is 13.31% of the land surface, with only 4.71% supporting permanent crops.

Earth's Surface

The last point I'll mention is regarding nucleotides being present in drinking water. This is already the case. It's such a low level, and standards are already in place, that it's currently a non-issue, and if it became one, measures could be taken to filter out the radioactive particles. There are several ways of doing this which we already have the technology for. If this were such a pressing issue, innovation would certainly hit the appropriate sectors with a swiftness.



Necessity, who is the mother of invention -- Plato
edit on 27-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Explanation: You forgot to shut the FukuGate Properly! :shk:

Background Radiation [wiki]


Human-caused background radiation
Per capita thyroid doses in the continental United States resulting from all exposure routes from all atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 1951-1962.Frequent above-ground nuclear explosions between the 1940s and 1960s scattered a substantial amount of radioactive contamination. Some of this contamination is local, rendering the immediate surroundings highly radioactive, while some of it is carried longer distances as nuclear fallout; some of this material is dispersed worldwide. The increase in background radiation due to these tests peaked in 1963 at about 0.15 mSv per year worldwide, or about 7% of average background dose from all sources. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibited above-ground tests, thus by the year 2000 the worldwide dose from these tests has decreased to only 0.005 mSv per year.[10]

Older coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture are a large source of human-caused background radiation exposure. When coal is burned, uranium, thorium and all the uranium daughters accumulated by disintegration — radium, radon, polonium — are released.[26] According to a 1978 article in Science magazine, "coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment".[27] Radioactive materials previously buried underground in coal deposits are released as fly ash or, if fly ash is captured, may be incorporated into concrete manufactured with fly ash. Radioactive materials are also released in gaseous emissions. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation estimates that per gigawatt-year (GWea) of electrical energy produced by coal, using the current mix of technology throughout the world, the population impact is approximately 0.8 lethal cancers per plant-year distributed over the affected population. With 400 GW of coal-fired power plants in the world, this amounts to some 320 deaths per year.[28]

Under normal circumstances, a modern nuclear reactor releases minuscule amounts of radioactive contamination. While the radiation released in minor accidents varies, major accidents like Windscale fire (Sellafield accident), the Chernobyl accident, and the Fukushima I nuclear accidents release massive radioactive contamination into the environment.[citation needed]


Three of the reactors at Fukushima I overheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to explosions (caused by a release of hydrogen from inside the reactor), which released large amounts of radioactive material into the air.[29]Radiation levels at the stricken Fukushima I power plant have varied spiking up to 1,000 mSv/h (millisievert per hour),[30] which is a level that can cause radiation sickness to occur at a later time following a one hour exposure.[31] Significant release in emissions of radioactive particles took place following hydrogen explosions at three reactors, as technicians tried to pump in seawater to keep the uranium fuel rods cool, and bled radioactive gas from the reactors in order to make room for the seawater.[32] Concerns about the possibility of a large scale radiation leak resulted in 20 km exclusion zone being set up around the power plant and people within the 20–30 km zone being advised to stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading nuclear contamination.[33] New Scientist has reported that emissions of radioactive iodine and cesium from the crippled Fukushima I nuclear plant have approached levels evident after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.[34] On March 24, 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures".[35] See Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.


Personal Disclosure: Everybody Dies!



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by intrptr
 

So you are saying that his claim that 6-8 times the level of background radiation is dangerous, is correct?

No I'm not. Nether is the air "full of Plutonium". You are stuck on comparing apples and oranges when you talk about the dangers of "Background radiation", what is a "safe level" or not. The most important term for you to understand when dealing with radiation is "ionizing radiation". Where it comes from, what its properties are, how it may affect you.

Look, I am not a Physicist or a professor and not even "educated", I just read books. I am not qualified to give you a refresher course in Physics, I would get it wrong. Judging by your responses on here and to others, I'm not sure its worth the time and effort.

I have to drive my mom somewhere, and when I return I'll see about working with you on it. Depends on you.


Edit: Meanwhile, it behooves you to check out Omega's posts. Class is in session.
edit on 27-10-2012 by intrptr because: additional...



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


So basically, you have no decent counter.

Noted.

I also note that you once claimed to have been codified as a psychopath from a professional, publicly on this forum.

Is this true?

If so I assume your exaggerations and lies are to induce a state of fear on this forum. It's a need for your particular psychological deviation. If this wasn't true, then nonetheless you are called out as an untrustworthy liar.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Explanation:



Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by undo
 


Explanation: I wouldn't have any clue as to that as I didn't base any of my equations on any such data sets.

I approached the situation in an idealized and global manner as much as I could.

I used the acute deaths from radiation sickness data from Chernobyl as a known case of deaths from an event such as Fukushima is.

That gave me a very basic baseline of garanteed deaths world wide from the Chernobyl event.

Everything after that is PURE speculation on my part. I might have speculated accurately or not?


Someone needs to check my maths to confirm or deny the accuracy possesed in my post.

We also need to confirm whether any material was ejected at all and in what amounts.

Personal Disclosure: I am NOT an expert .. in anything! Take my post with a pinch of iodized salt ok!



Personal Disclosure:


So you clearly don't read what I provide you.


And you choose to make this about me!


And it took less than 2hrs and 2posts for you to jeopardize your own membership to have swipe at little, lowly and insane OL. :shk:





posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Explanation: They have no need to as I have done that already ...

Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die (note only OmegaLogos posts) [ATS]

And I shall quote myself ...


Ok then 7% is way lower than 100% ... so lets recalibrate and just focus on the plutonium in the mox fuel.

So whats 7% of 35.25 quadrillion??? = 2469078015000000 atoms ... That's still about 2.5 [rnded up] QUADRILLION atoms of plutonium... per person!

Ok now... lets use your data on 50micrograms per kilo of body weight and average body weight of 80kg.

That means 4milligrams [of plutonium] is enuff to definately kill a single person.

Now 244grams of plutonium was 1 MOLE of plutonium and was

= Avogadro's No# in atoms ie 6.0221415 × 10^23 atoms

/ 244 = 2468090778688524590164 [rnded up] atoms of plutonium per 1gram

/ 1000 = 2468090778688524590 [rnded down] atoms of plutonium per 1milligram

x 4 = 9872363114754098360 [as is] atoms is required to kill a single person GARANTEED!

Now ....

7kg / 0.004g = 1750000 [rnded down] 100% lethal doses in 7kg of plutonium [7% of the MOX fuel remember]

7billion people / 1750000 100% fully lethal doses = 1 in 4000 chance of dying.

Thats an increase in chance of dying of 50000 times compared with the 31 chernobyl deaths. [ie 1 in 200 million]

Thats 5million % increase in chance of DEATH [per person] at the maximum for just the plutonium in the mox fuel.

2211474285432690280000000000 cubic metres of atmosphere AND ocean [(8.5km x earth entire surface area) + (3.79km x earths entire oceanic surface area.) note: both sourced from WIKI and everything converted to cubic meters [a billion fold increase]]

= 0.008 [rnded up] atoms of plutonium [spread evenly throughout the WHOLE atmosphere]

PER 1 cubic metre [ie 1m^3] of atmosphere ... Thats 1 atom of plutonium per ever 5mtrs^3 [ie. 125 cubic metres].

**************************************************************************


So I reduced that maximum extreme ballpark figure from 35.25 quadrillion fold increase per person down to a far more reasonable [? ] 50000 increase in chance of death from plutonium worldwide.

I also showed that if it was ubiquitously spread everywhere it would be inescapable!!!


And ...


Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Explanation: St*rred!


(San Francisco) – Physics Professor Paolo Scampa announced March 23, 2011 that the four destroyed reactors at Fukushima, Japan was about 70 Billion Lethal Doses, finely divided. Professor Scampa used only official IAEA data (International Atomic Energy Agency).

According to the US Census Bureau, there are approximately 6 Billion, 907 Million people on Earth today.

The wrecked General Electric nuclear reactors contained enough radioactive, highly poisonous fuel to kill every person on Earth about 10 times.

The poison is in the atmosphere and spreading all over the world from Japan in 9 to 10 days.
www.infiniteunknown.net...




Now ....

7kg / 0.004g = 1750000 [rnded down] 100% lethal doses in 7kg of plutonium [7% of the MOX fuel remember]

7billion people / 1750000 100% fully lethal doses = 1 in 4000 chance of dying.

Thats an increase in chance of dying of 50000 times compared with the 31 chernobyl deaths. [ie 1 in 200 million]


Thats the difference between 100kg [7kg of plutonium] and the entire power plants entire nuclear fuel load plus all the extra stored nuclear waste material etc.

Its a 40000 times difference between my worst case scenerio and the absolute maximum worse case scenerio.

Thanks for providing linked information that my maths estimate was well within the ball park of whats possible!

Personal Disclosure: And thanks also for providing weather simulations etc.






This is what you wrote. You did not include what was written later in the thread. It was a lie by omission. You are also implying that I should have searched your postings in that thread, which came from page what...11, or 12??.
You can play the pity card well as a psychopath. I don't buy your lies.



*****I note for any mods viewing this thread, that OL has continuously lied and knowingly provided nonfactual information, which is against T & C policy*****
edit on 27-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: if you're going to call someone out, get all the facts straight!



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


So you are saying the air is actually full of deadly Pu particles, but we just can't detect them.

That doesn't prove they are there.

So what do you base your claims on, if you can't even detect them?

The detection equipment for Alpha and Beta emissions is way more than off the shelf expensive and available. They are part of a class of equipment that are called Spectrometers. The most expensive of their kind detect and measure isotopes and nuclides.

You have to remember that any radiological detection gear is detecting emissions by registering an "event". This decay event is called a ray. You know, X-"rays", gamma rays, cosmic rays. These "ionized' rays zoom thru space at the speed of light. They are light speed fast and infinitely small (almost) but their mass hits hard.

Suns make them. Supernovas make them. Nuclear weapons make them. And yes, nuclear reactors too. Reactors control the "decay" events which boil water, turn turbines and make electricity that lets you read this. That is "controlled" fission. All the safeguards and containment and backup systems are employed in a reactor to prevent the other kind of fission which is "uncontrolled". An uncontrolled fission chain reaction is what occurred in the reactor wells. When all the backup of water and pumps and diesel and batteries failed, the operating reactor cores melted down in a few hours. During that meltdown process is when all the fission by products were produced that burst out of the concrete and steel containment and entered the world of men. The worst possible case scenario in the manuals.

Tons and Tons of fuel rods both in the cores and in cooling pools were involved in varying stages in each of 4 plants at Fukushima (as far as we know). Fission by-products as they are called are not intended but rather a result of the unintentional uncontrolled chain reaction. Like lighting a box of stick matches. They all burn off in a conflagration and then slowly cool down.
These "nuclides" can be smaller than the size of atoms and depending on their place on the chart can be radioactive in different "ways". Gamma producers are different from Alpha or Beta producers. Hence the terms.

Without getting more detailed the nature and strength of their emissions determine how detectable they are. Ordinary geiger counters can detect all three but must be extremely close to an alpha source before detecting it.

That is, you can literally sprinkle the ground at your feet with Plutonium and the hand held detector will not register any "clicks" or "counts" (decay events) unless and until you get that detector right down on the ground in direct contact with the Plutonium. Even then all you are detecting is the emissions from a "source", not the PU it self. You don't know what kind of stuff is on the ground. It could be any number of nuclides or isotopes as far as the detector is concerned. It just reads "clicks" and averages them in a per minute readout on the LED screen or needle scale.

Even the most expensive like Mr. Inspector are simply calibrated to detect decay events as they pass thru the internal ionization chamber within the detector. In that sense the detector is measuring an overall background of the environment the detector is now in. You could walk 10 paces and be out of the "danger" area. But the wind can blow that dust all over your town into the rivers and up in the sky. Atoms are very small and light. My post early on in this thread linked to studies of lead crossing the pacific ocean from Asia. Lead is "heavy" right? Heavier than atoms of Plutonium or Cesium or Cobalt 60.

So depending on where in earths ever changing environment these radioactive contaminated particles are they affect the background radiation in a given area and are detected in this manner by the detectors people are buying. One day a batch of lettuce or milk will be "hot", another it won't. One day the readings are up after a rain storm, the next they are "back to (normal) background".

Not sure any of this is making sense or if there are questions... I could be saying some things "wrong" or not clear enough.

Anyway, enough for now. I'll see how you react to this bit.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I pretty much have a basic understanding how it all works, but my questions still stands, where is the tangeable proof that there are increased and dangerous levels of dangerous particles in locations worldwide.

I understand that the situation at Fuku is FUBAR, I am just waiting for a solid confirmation that we should all be very worried worldwide.

Also, I was in a discussion with Littleblackeagle about his claims that his 6-8 times background level radiation measurements where proof of a health risk.

You must agree that his readings are irrelevant in this health risk discussion, they mean nothing.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Explanation:


I did include it here ...


Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die (note only OmegaLogos posts) [ATS]


And I provided the bare minimum ... you were however asked to ...


PLEASE READ FULL STORY!


And you clearly failed to even give all of my posts [linked convieniently in one place for yourself] a look over or you would have clearly noticed the post that I linked later on exist as a post in between the two I quoted for your convienience.

This goes to your lack of ability to dig for yourself and it goes to your childish attitude of 'me wanty now'


And even worse ... you overlook the obvious ...


Its a 40000 times difference between my worst case scenerio and the absolute maximum worse case scenerio.

Thanks for providing linked information that my maths estimate was well within the ball park of whats possible!


Personal Disclosure: You don't bother to read ... you don't bother to comprehend ... you don't bother to dig and yet you think OL is bothersome ... LMAO!



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.





new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join