Originally posted by ErosA433
As to people sensing it, I am quite doubtful sorry to say... There are a million and one things that have a big effect on the human body, neutrino
flux... mmmmm not sure given its minimal effect on the enormous detectors we use to study the flux from the sun. Im talking about 1 interaction per
day in some cases. It makes me rather dubious when it would be claimed that the radioactive decay rate changing even by slight amount would be
noticeable to a macroscopic creature such as ourselves.
Did you guys pass out from this effect in 1987?
Most probably don't even have a clue what you are talking about in 1987 but I know exactly
what you mean.
Given that the vast majority of neutrinos pass through the entire planet Earth as if it isn't even there, I fail to comprehend how people think the
human body can be any sort of neutrino detector. I try to avoid using the word impossible, tempting as it is, so let me say it seems extremely
unlikely, and bordering on the impossible.
Plus, if you're sensitive to neutrinos, or think you are, you are constantly bombarded with them:
Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun. About 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square
centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth.
Originally posted by ConstantConfusion3
Common sense tells me, if these particles cause a slight decay rate change in radioactive isotopes being studied in labs, and humans have
radioactive elements naturally found in each of our bodies, it SHOULD be effecting us in SOME way.
But you haven't demonstrated this is the
case. You apologized for not having any links, and wondered if this is the right place to post. I can offer some guidance on that.
ATS has a forum called "skunk works" which is described as follows:
ATS Skunk Works: This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and
span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this
forum. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who
would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and
If you don't plan to post any support of your claims, then you should post the topic to that location...that's why it's on the site.
But the forum you posted in isn't exempt from requiring supporting evidence like Skunk works.
So I did a search and think I found what you should have posted, is this the article you're thinking of?
Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements
On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear
engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate
dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.
If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their
So, that article mentions one observation. Let me repeat.
Do you understand the statistical significance of a sample size of one? If not, let me tell you, it's not a significant sample size. So I did some
more research and found the latest paper from Jere H. Jenkins is dated this month, so it's very recent. Here is the link:
In that link he references his earlier papers on which that science daily article was partly based, yet I didn't see any subsequent references to any
papers confirming this solar flare effect, so unless you can find otherwise, it doesn't seem as if the effect was confirmed or if so I can't find
where the confirmation was published.
So it appears to me that one observation is statistically insignificant, and is no basis for establishing any kind of woo belief when the article even
says no correlation has been proven. Apparently, that is still the case.
But if you look at the real science, there is some very interesting real science going on here. Maybe if people occupy their minds with the real
science, they won't have as much time to think about whether their bodies are solar flare detectors or not.
edit on 21-11-2012 by Arbitrageur