Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Radioactive decay rate change, can YOU feel it??

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Actually it affects the DNA of everything! The Sun and its rays do bombard us everyday and the FEELINGS you are getting has to do with the changes your bodys going through.
Some learn to deal with it while others will go mad! As for the past few months it seems to be getting stronger, rate of decay or changes to your system play a part. Goes with everything, look at the birds, fish everything is being affected as of now.
To what end, we shall see.




posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
In Reference to Fukashima, Radiation levels did rise, along the air path, though please educate me to exactly what you know about radiation? You know that Natural radiation levels vary massively around he world right? and that there are places that are 2-3x more active than others... Rather than jumping on band waggons and Nuclear fear you should parhaps focus your efforts on dangerous chemicals being dumped into the environment tonne by tonne every single day rather than a release from a plant, the majority of which decayed away in a period of days.

Go and campaign against stocking bananas all in one place, they are more dangerous to pregnant women than Fukashima was in the long run... yes it was terrible but please please please, perspective

Anyway...
The other thing that is terrible in this thread is the attitude of "Oh the skeptics are stupid they will catch up eventually" No no and no, what we want is a physical explanation, that is all... so it is an interesting effect if it is proven, and I can imagine some kind of neutrino coupling mechanism that changes the stability of a chemical... sort of like how you use effective masses when considering electrons moving around in solids, rather than the simple electron mass. A little like the neutrino oscillation suppression by passage through dense objects

You should never just dismiss scepticism it is bad science and shows that you are not really willing to be open on the subject either. Going off in a huff and insulting people only goes to cement the position. While my comment regarding 1987 might have sounded sarcastic, but in many ways i was being absolutely serious.

If this effect is neutrinos, and people here report to be influenced by it, in 1987 was an interesting year...
edit on 22-11-2012 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2012 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Actually, the only question that comes to my mind on this subject is whether or not the sun is what determines the rate of speed in the aging process of all biological matter taking this neutrino(?) decay rate information into account.

Yup, to me that round fiery ball in the sky is just a big ol' battery that everything runs its power from thus the energy output of said battery determines the "current flow" (per se) in everything else.

Mommy feeding its chitlins.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Here's one article-
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry


And you know, that one's a bit over-wordy but it's at least correct, as far as it goes. Beta decay, which is KNOWN to be alterable by things like electric fields (and we know why), seems to be affected in this case. It's interesting. What isn't clear at all is why this would be something you could feel.



on another-


However, here you jump from "IO9", which at least TRIES to be accurate, to "jimmyprophetwordpress", which is a woo blog.

I note you didn't post the site you were quoting from for this part. You ought not. It's sort of "time cubey", innit?
edit on 22-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConstantConfusion3
It's relatively old news that scientists and physicists noticed a link between radioactive decay rate change and a "mysterious" particle (possibly from a previously unknown interaction between neutrinos and radioactive isotopes) by the sun.


Reading through the lit, it looks like the only radioactive decay that's affected involves the emission or capture of electrons - it's either beta decay or inverse beta decay. It's the only form of radioactive decay we have been able to affect directly ourselves at times, and it's what's being affected here. The rates are, at times, abnormally slow during certain solar events, so at times elements that are radioactive by beta emission are a bit less so.



Does anyone know if there is research on the effects, if any, on the radioactive elements naturally found in the human body? Please post any links if so.


If you've got any beta emitting isotopes in you, then they too will be a bit less active at times.



Has ANYONE, who keeps track of solar flares, noticed a change in the way they FEEL prior to, during or after solar flares? If so, how did you feel?


That's a question that doesn't lend itself to an answer you're looking for. One, why would you have some sort of exquisitely sensitive beta-emission detector in your body? Two, there are a lot of other effects during a solar flare - how are you planning to exclude all the other inputs? Why would you assume you're somehow detecting a tiny variation in beta decay rather than, say, the magnetosphere's impact shock causing tiny ripples in the Earth's magnetosphere? At least we know that some animals HAVE magnetic sensing.

That sort of thing is called a confounder, and it's one of the hardest things to scrape out of scientific studies.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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.


Affecting whatever trace quantities of radioisotopes that are in you, yes. However, you have to ask your common sense - do isotopic changes affect chemistry? What does it tell you about that? Because I know the answer, and it's "no".




There is very little research on the subject of decay rate changing particles because the entire concept is apparently hard to swallow for the scientific community, understandably.. In order to progress in physics, it should be studied and applied, instead of wasting time trying to scrutinize (the testing done to attempt to discount the findings done by Purdue and Stanford, is actually helping to prove their case- ha ha!!)


You really don't understand the scientific method, do you? Of COURSE others are trying to verify it. That's the way science works. Religion is the one where you get a proclaimed truth and no one is able to verify it.

Oh, and I guess I'll need to write all the guys who've written scholarly papers on external alteration of beta decay rates over the years and tell 'em they didn't do that. Dr Emery will be pissed.

edit on 22-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConstantConfusion3

In the mean time, google "radioactive decay rate change" if it's not too much trouble. The fact is the decay rate is changing. That is a fact, not my opinion.


It MAY be a fact. That's why people are doing actual research on it - that thing you call "questioning Purdue!!". Because if it's not replicable, it's not real.

Also, you can't just google for keywords and produce any sort of rational answer. You need to read the papers, make some discrimination between which are written by legitimate researchers (hint - educate yourself, rex research, bibliotecleyapades, Bearden and the like are not) and understand what the papers are telling you.

Science is not a hit count comparison on Google. Truth isn't on the side of the guy with the most popular keywords. You actually have read and understand what you fetch.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoseeker26754
Actually it affects the DNA of everything!


Actually, it doesn't. Why would you think DNA would undergo beta decay? Note that this only happens with certain isotopes. Which ones do you think are in DNA in enough concentration that all your DNA would be affected in some way?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Well, as much as you say io9 tries to be accurate, again thats not how scientific research gets presented, a web page like that has the same credibility as some random wordpress page. It is interesting, but still lends to it being written 2nd or 3rd hand by someone who sort of maybe understands 20% of what he/she was told on a subject.

It gets back to the whole "Tevatron going to make black holes" Oh it didnt, ok "LEP going to make black holes" Oh it didn't either "OH LHC is definitely going to make black holes" Oh... well

An issue brought to light by a biologist who took to reading random theory papers... well done that man, but seriously even physicists in particle physics dont tend to really understand half of the heavy theory papers they read... a biologist? totally out of depth most likely...

It is an interesting effect no doubt and you shouldn't take my straight talk as being aggressive but there are a hundred and one things that occur and do effect the Earth when a flare occurs. Neutrinos (I do have a PhD that was based in neutrino physics by the way) i find very very very hard to believe would have a direct acting effect on the human body... the reason is just that, we can probably walk around for about 2 weeks and not have a single neutrino interact with our body... and its only 1 single particle that will interact. OK sure it might smack into a few others, but if you think that is a huge effect? you seem to forget the millions of cosmic rays that pass right through us every day.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Well... DNA being mostly composed of Nitrogen, Oxygen,Carbon and Phosphorus (and a bit of Hyrdrogen)

Each have radioactive isotopes but yep i agree with you completely, these are trace levels and the rate at which the isotopes turn up and beta decay are quite rare and seriously if anyone thinks they can feel a single cell in their body dying because a beta decay broke up the DNA is quite simply... well... sorry to be so frank but... insane.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
Well, as much as you say io9 tries to be accurate, again thats not how scientific research gets presented, a web page like that has the same credibility as some random wordpress page. It is interesting, but still lends to it being written 2nd or 3rd hand by someone who sort of maybe understands 20% of what he/she was told on a subject.


If you can get even that much out of mainstream journalists on a scientific subject, you're lucky. At least they're not TRYING to fabricate, though, like the blog.

Hell, I've never seen the Beeb get a description of GPS right, and you'd think they could at least manage that.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Well... DNA being mostly composed of Nitrogen, Oxygen,Carbon and Phosphorus (and a bit of Hyrdrogen)

Each have radioactive isotopes but yep i agree with you completely, these are trace levels and the rate at which the isotopes turn up and beta decay are quite rare and seriously if anyone thinks they can feel a single cell in their body dying because a beta decay broke up the DNA is quite simply... well... sorry to be so frank but... insane.


But of the isotopes of those - how many undergo beta decay, and are commonly present outside a lab? And then, the damage, if any, has to be irreparable by normal DNA editing enzymes, and the damage has to be in a gene that's expressed and not in a spacer sequence or an area that's inhibited, and the damaged area would have to be critical, and the cell would then have to die or malfunction, and that cell would have to be in a place that would actually cause a detectable change in body habitus. Meh. I'd put it in a sound "not happening, ever" category.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

However, here you jump from "IO9", which at least TRIES to be accurate, to "jimmyprophetwordpress", which is a woo blog.

I note you didn't post the site you were quoting from for this part. You ought not. It's sort of "time cubey", innit?
edit on 22-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


I have no idea what you are talking about; The quotes I put up (both following my words "an another..") were taken from the article linked to after them Here Again
Which is not from anything called jimmyprophetwordpress (?)

I am not going to dance with you on your challenge to the OP that she "prove" her inner sensations to you.

She only would need that to make a hypothesis that involves others. When she makes an assertion that everyone must feel something during a solar flare, well I'll back you on your retort.

The links I put up were just for those who are not familiar with the subject, the findings in the last few years that the rate of radioactive decay is not stable (and some of the questions that raises).


Guess what? I often feel sluggish when it is gray and cold out..... good luck proving me wrong on that.
edit on 22-11-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

I have no idea what you are talking about; The quotes I put up (both following my words "an another..") were taken from the article linked to after them Here Again
Which is not from anything called jimmyprophetwordpress (?)


Ah. Since you left no attribution, I searched for the words in the quote and that's what came up most often.

But "project world awareness" isn't any better, so my comment still stands - your first cite you almost could use as a source, at least to see where to go for the real data, but that one's another woo site. You can almost hear the author's hands wringing.

A LOT of things cause people to have variations in their feelings. Really, that's partly my point. I'm not sure how you sort out feelings that are somehow induced by some putative neutrino radiation and how you feel for any other reason, as you say, maybe it's just cold and gray out. At least there's some evolutionary biology that might be involved there - when it's cold and gray out, it might be better for someone to just hole up and conserve energy than to get out and become ill. I can't figure out how a human beta-radiation decay rate detector would be relevant.
edit on 22-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Bedlam, you didn't check the blog article links, did you? That article compiles links from scientific sources.

I think you're doing a disservice to yourself as you did with Eastlund's Gossard citation...

You didn't realise ergs/cm^2/sec is CGS equivalent unit for Watts/m^2 in SI system.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Bedlam, you didn't check the blog article links, did you? That article compiles links from scientific sources.

I think you're doing a disservice to yourself as you did with Eastlund's Gossard citation...

You didn't realise ergs/cm^2/sec is CGS equivalent unit for Watts/m^2 in SI system.


That again? You didn't realize that they're still talking about the energy carried by an air upflow, not a radio wave.

Did you read the blog? Do you consider that dreck something you could actually use as a cite in S&T without someone holding it out by the tail like a partially decomposed cat?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I am a layman, but doesn't any change to the radioactive decay rate indicate that our dating methods are likely off? If the rate is changing now, how do we know there weren't periods when it was changed before?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Endure
 


So far, the errors are less than the error band on dating methods.

To know if it's had a longer term effect, you'd have to know why that's happening, and if it's happened at a much LARGER rate at some time in the past.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Right, so it is possible that the rate could have been very different at points, and we have not taken that into account, because we really can't. Wouldn't that seem to indicate that we can't really be sure how old the Earth is?





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join