FukuFlu/Fallout Fluenza/Radiation Rainouts Target North America

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Depopulation agenda?


Let's keep in mind this was caused by a tsunami which was caused by an earthquake. You are saying that was all PLANNED?


One would think "they" would come up with better "depopulation agendas," - we keep getting supposed huge chemtrails that do nothing at all.. and now a planned EQ leading to a tsunami leading to the power failure of a nuclear plant purposely built at that location decades before for the sole purpose of this depopulation. Riiiight...




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by intrptr
 


The Irony
edit on 15-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


Acute Radiation Syndrome, aka Radiaton Poisoning

Would you like to offer an apology for continuing to call me misinformed, when it seems you are the one who is?

I'll accept a bunch of bananas as a token of good intent.

Not scuurred.


From your "Irony" link on poisons:


In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism.

You brought a link abut poison which rightly deals with molecular biology. Radioactivity is on the atomic scale and is not a "chemical reaction". Again---Two different things. Judging by the way you disguised an off topic link and labeled it IRONY without any description, I still hold that you are practicing deception and I don't care what you think about it any more. So go ahead and make up some more stuff and ask me for an apology. Or don't. I'm done presenting information to people in denial or outright lying.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Thats like saying that the human body has adapted to machine gun bullets. Light speed "bullets". They are called "rays" because they travel speed of light. When struck by these x-rays or gamma rays a living cell is as destroyed as if hit by a bullet. Some cells survive and may mutate the next time they divide which gives rise to cancer.


Not quite. For information on how mutation works please see:
reply to post by Dispo
 


For information on how cancer arises, please read this excerpt from another post I made:


Cancer is not caused by CO2 or CO as they are not mutagens. Carcinogenic particulates in smoke are the cause of extra/additional mutations during DNA replication which CAN increase your risk of POTENTIALLY destroying your body's multitude of cancer-answer systems. For information on DNA replication and the process of mutation, see my post on an unrelated topic in which I describe the process here:

reply to post by Dispo


Edit: the process of mutation may not even affect us at all, sometimes it may be like swapping the word rain for reign, other times it may be adding a d to the word andd, and other times it may be like taking a letter away from the word becuse. The word and sentence would still be perfectly readable.

Sometimes though, it can completely change the meaning of the sentence, like it it removes the n't from the sentence "do put your hand in the fire."

Then bad things happen, tumour suppressing genes don't do what they're supposed to, proto oncogenes become oncogenes and we all die.

N.B. These mutations happen over time, which is why cancer is more common in old people, and why cancer was relatively unheard of back when the average life expectancy was 40. Cancer is like life's catch-all killer - if the liver and the heart don't get you, cancer comes along and says "that's your lot." Carcinogens like some chemicals in smoke can accelerate the rate of mutation, which increases the likelihood of bad mutations happening. That said, I'd rather live to 60 and have fun than live to 90 on salads and jogging.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Also is this thread now about cancer, or is it still about flu?

If it's still about flu - here's why radiation affects your immune system:
reply to post by Dispo
 


If we have any resident physicists here, the question I want to know the answer to is this - what is the proportion of radiation being added to our daily exposure by fukushima?

Google says 50 rads will begin to affect lymphocyte function, but I have absolutely no idea how that stacks up here.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 

Not sure what smoke has to do with Ionizing Radiation , but...


That said, I'd rather live to 60 and have fun than live to 90 on salads and jogging.

Me too. But... I tried to smoke myself to death involuntarily for 35 years. Now I am quit and waiting for the big C...

So far so good. Ingesting a particle of radioactive contamination is a game changer as far as it goes. External sources of radiation pass thru us, toxins are passible as the auto immune system sees them and passes them from the blood and the gut.

To the body however an atom sized xray machine that can't be turned off is for all intensive purposes invisible but for the damage it does to living tissue. One particle is enough to bombard cells in its local area for the lifetime of its decay path. The body may cleanse and renew, but if in the bone or connecting tissue, there the X-ray machine sits, irradiating away... until... one... day...

That makes it most insidious.
edit on 15-1-2013 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


It was a thread about smoke, but the underlying principles behind the formation of cancer are the same - mutation.

The cause of the mutation in this case is different, but I was explaining how cancer arises, not discussing the causes of mutation.

As I said earlier, what really matters is how does the radiation level reaching you from fukushima compare to the radiation level you expose yourself to daily from the sun/bananas/living a stone, brick or concrete building/the EPA guidelines for nuclear powperplant radiation release etc?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 



If we have any resident physicists here, the question I want to know the answer to is this - what is the proportion of radiation being added to our daily exposure by fukushima?

Google says 50 rads will begin to affect lymphocyte function, but I have absolutely no idea how that stacks up here.

A "Rad" ia a measurement of accumulated dose. Every time I google the various terms for threshold harm the "measure" seems to go up. It was well known after Fukushima that the government on Tepco's behalf kept upping the allowable dose of radiation. We are doing it too.

I am not a physician... nor a physicist. The term that most concerns the world today is "Hot Particle". That is the "Radionuclide" by product of the uncontrolled fission that has occurred at Fukushima. There are many different nuclides released into the environment and they are dispersing around the world in the water, on the wind and some of these "hot particles" are being absorbed by us. The amount of "hot" particles in each of us is up for interpretation. I have to advise anyone who wants to know more about it to google some of these terms and find out for themselves. The amount of study is enormous and some of it misleading. There is a thread on ATS that has resident experts and they have volumes of information on the subject.

Sorry, best I can do for now. Heres the thread. Stick your head in and ask the same question. They will be glad to help.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


The problem with the readings given in places like California is they talk about how much higher than background they are, but never talk about what background is. If background is incredibly low, then a reading of 506% above background is still going to be in what's considered the "safe" range for exposure. Unless we know what the normal levels are then anything talking about how much higher they are now is trying to spread fear about radiation, not inform you of anything.

People that talk about the dose of radiation that you are being exposed to are usually confusing dose with dose rate. I can take a dose of radiation that's fairly high, but if it's only on one day, then my average exposure by measuring the dose rate is going to still be low and in the safe range.

I'll try to find the official reports over the next couple of days to get an idea of what the levels in California are, but nothing I've seen to date raises any alarms. It's higher than normal of course, but it's not high enough to cause health problems unless it lingers for years, which it won't because the weather will push it out and cause lower readings as time goes on.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
edit on 15-1-2013 by essanance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by intrptr
 

...what really matters is how does the radiation level reaching you from fukushima compare to the radiation level you expose yourself to daily from the sun/bananas/living a stone, brick or concrete building/the EPA guidelines for nuclear powperplant radiation release etc?

If that was a question... all that stuff you are listing adds up to what is referred to as "normal background" radiation. That is, sources of radiation external to you that emit "ionizing" and (non ionizing) radiation which pass thru your body and are gone. Actual incidences of impact within your body is almost zero. To add to the definition, a chest x-ray or plane flight delivers a higher than normal background dose. Still, the chest x-ray is momentary and you get off the flight when it lands. The exposure "ends".

However, (my post from earlier)...

That depends on what you consider a "low dose". The "nuclide" (read that smaller than an atom) bit of xray machine in your body that is bombarding nearby cells with alpha radiation is not even detectable unless you get a "full body scan" Those are expensive by the way.

Hers a pic of what it does to living flesh...



A particle of plutonium 239 revealed by autoradiography. The black star in the middle of the picture shows tracks made by alpha rays emitted from a particle of plutonium 239 in the lung tissue of an ape. The alpha rays do not travel very far but once inside the body they can penetrate more than 10,000 cells within their range. This set of alpha tracks (magnified 500 times) occured over a 48 hr period. The plutonium 239 particle that emitted them has a half life of 24,400 years. [Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley California, September 20, 1982.]



This illustration is taken from Robert Del Tredici's book Working in the Fields of the Bomb - published in 1987. It shows a plutonium particle emitting ionising radiation. The tracks are about 35 microns (5 cell diameters) but this is a two dimensional view of a 3D tissue event, which in fact occurs continuously in biological space. Like a land mine that never stops exploding, it is perpetually damaging and destroying cells.

Did I read that correctly? 24,000 year long mini land mine in my flesh? Some cells are destroyed and die. Others heal but the next time they divide "may mutate" and that gives rise to incidences of cancer. It doesn't mean you are going to get cancer , just that the odds of that are increased by having "radioactive contamination" in your system. This is not a "low dose" as defined by the posters linked article, it is a continuos dose.

www.animatedsoftware.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Are we talking about cancer or flu here?

Because yes, having an alpha source in your body is likely to cause cancer at some point along with a host of other diseases, but in terms of the immune system, its short range will be unlikely to massively affect lymphocytes.

Edit: hang on, I think I've worked it out. You're arguing that fukushima is going to cause you to inhale plutonium particles, while other posters are arguing that fukushima will irradiate you. Big difference.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Except is it the dose, or the dose RATE? There is a very important difference. You can be exposed to 36 mRems in one dose, but if your dose rate every other day stays the same as background, or even a little higher, than your dose rate for the year is going to be about the same as previous years, and is going to be low. It's only when you get into the really high exposure levels that the dose and dose rate become synonymous.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by intrptr
 


Are we talking about cancer or flu here?

My bad. The OP is considering the recent flu outbreak. I don't know about that. Any number of life threatening, progressively degenerative diseases are a result of many factors. One of those is Radioactivity.


Because yes, having an alpha source in your body is likely to cause cancer at some point along with a host of other diseases, but in terms of the immune system, its short range will be unlikely to massively affect lymphocytes.

The nuclides are on an atomic scale, way below the ability of the bodies auto immune system to even detect. All it sees is the resulting damage done on a continuos basis. The atoms (once ingested) migrate inside the body. From the lungs to the blood to the organs or bone and connective tissue. Once embedded they irradiate their locality for years, decades. These may build up over time and cause immune depletion that could lower the bodies ability to fight off disease. In the end, like AIDS, you die of the common cold.

This is an accumulated dose. Low dose but steady. Like an x-ray machine you can't turn off. Where they land in the body will decide the areas affected. The body will cast off some and more will be ingested in an ongoing battle. This is what the OP is referring to about the flu. If the bodies immunity is overall compromised by the influx of radioactive contamination then it is more susceptible to disease.


Edit: hang on, I think I've worked it out. You're arguing that fukushima is going to cause you to inhale plutonium particles, while other posters are arguing that fukushima will irradiate you. Big difference

Around the reactors there may be a high concentration of "radiation" from the source. Across oceans the concern is the food we eat, water we drink and air we breathe may have dispersed isotopes and radionuclides, i.e., Radioactive contamination. Like you say the alpha emitters are the worst as they are not detectable at even short ranges (a few microns) with ordinary equipment.

Fukushima is "irradiating" us, just not like people understand. One piece of advise I tell people is to purchase some kind of radiation detector and run it over the food and liquids we consume (just to check), Also stay hydrated with distilled water to reduce the number of intakes of "hot particles", Distilled is best because it is most free of solids and the hydration improves cell wall permeability. Then you can choose to eat a supplement that cleanses the body. There is a list of those. I don't worry about it. What can we do? If it overwhelms us down the road, there is no place to hide from it. So do the simple things and live your life.
edit on 16-1-2013 by intrptr because: a lot of changes



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thank you Zaphod. Everything you said there was accurate. You are a much better digger than I. If you could find some charts on the "Recommended Daily Allowance" some would find that useful.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


This one is fun. It will calculate your daily dose for you.

www.new.ans.org...

There's no real daily chart, because the amount we're exposed to on a daily bases both fluctuates drastically, depending on what we do that day, and because it's so small. All the allowance charts are for yearly exposure, which is how it's measured.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Greetings:

Thank you everyone for your participation. Keep up the good work and keep looking... you never know what will turn up.


A man is given a flu shot by at the medical offices of Yaffe Ruden & Associates in New York on January 10, 2013. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that this year's flu season is expected to be one of the worst the country has seen in 10 years. (TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)

Google Flu Trends indicates outbreak could be worst on record - The Denver Post

Google Flu Trends | United States



Google Flu Trends | Japan




Radiation pneumonitis is an inflammation of the lungs due to radiation therapy.

This side effect of radiation therapy occurs in 5 to 15% of people who go through radiation therapy for lung cancer, but can also result from radiation to the chest for breast cancer, lymphomas, or other cancers.

Symptoms most commonly occur between 1 and 6 months after completing radiation therapy. The risk of developing this complication depends on the dose of radiation used and the amount of tissue treated. It is more common if chemotherapy is given at the same time as radiation therapy, and is more likely to occur if you have other lung diseases, such as COPD. With treatment, most people recover without any lasting effects.
source


After almost TWO YEARS (676 days) of 24/7/365 radiation spewing from triple melt-throughs at Fukushima, is it just possible that our immune systems have been somewhat compromised?

Fallout fluenza just might be FukuFlu due to the radiation rainouts that have been continuing for years ever since nuclear bomb testing in the atmosphere... and aggravated by Nukushima...

And vaccinations seem incapable of keeping our children safe from 'whooping cough,'
as evidenced in another great thread right here on ATS.
Whooping Cough Outbreak Involved 90% Vaccinated Kids

So we turn to phys.org for news... and Fuku Flu jumps out - with CIA and Stuxnet in the same paragraph...





Britain warns over state-sponsored cyber attacks



[color=magenta]Peace Love Light
tfw
[color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Except is it the dose, or the dose RATE? There is a very important difference. You can be exposed to 36 mRems in one dose, but if your dose rate every other day stays the same as background, or even a little higher, than your dose rate for the year is going to be about the same as previous years, and is going to be low. It's only when you get into the really high exposure levels that the dose and dose rate become synonymous.

That is the million dollar question and it is not easy to answer when you consider that such terms as "normal background" and "safe levels" are misleading.

The difference being between external radiation sources and internal (to the body) radiation sources. You sit in the sun long enough and you will shrink because of "radiation". Get too close to a fire and you will get burned by radiation. Heat is radiation. Remove yourself from the source and the radiation levels decrease. Those two examples are of "non ionizing" radiation. They would not set off a geiger counter.

An (ionizing) source of external radiation would be a "cosmic ray" (from space), an "x-ray" (from the doctor) or a "gamma ray" from the reactors. These are still from sources outside your body that pass thru it and likely don't hit anything. The latter sources of ionizing radiation are all added up to indicate what is called "normal background" radiation. But really the term is a misnomer. What is the "normal temperature" on any given day?

Normal rainfall? If you get caught in a flash flood and drown you don't die of "normal rainfall".

So now lets consider dose. All things totaled up and averaged, the external sources of ionizing radiation will subject the "normal" person to an average back ground of say 30 Counts per minute (CPM). A single "count" or "click" is one "decay event" detected in an "ionization chamber" inside a detector or geiger "counter".

That is the "dose rate" we all receive every minute of every day of our lives. If you take an airline flight or get a chest x-ray, your dose rate goes up for that period of time but ends when you get off the flight. People that work at the Fukushima site cleaning up the mess also have to deal with a dose rate that accumulates and has a "safe limit" for exposure not to exceed. That is accumulative. A person can only take a higher than background dose for a certain amount of time depending on the exposure dose rate. Once the allowable maximum dose (from any rate) has been reached the worker leaves the area and the dose rate diminishes to "normal". This is still however from sources of radiation external to the body. The accumulation of exposure to external radiation sources is the "dose". Again the safe limits are determined by people who average such things based on experience and documented records of this.

All that crap I just wrote is irrelevant when it comes to "ingested" sources of radioactivity. This material aka., radionuclides, isotopes, radioactive elements, hot particles, radioactive contamination, fission by products, the stuff that is the source for the clicks and counts that are detected, takes on a whole new meaning when ingested thru breathing or eating.

You see, all their external "normal back ground" and "allowable safe dose" or "dose rate" is thrown out the window when you actually eat a bit of it. Now your body is "radioactively contaminated". The source for those emissions (decay events. clicks or counts) is now inside you. There is no way to walk way from that continuos source. There is no way to decrease the levels that bit of active contamination is emitting. As long as it is in you it is irradiating nearby cells and that is what gives rise to cancer. Instead of a single (any) ray passing through you and being gone, now the little x-ray machine is inside you and it can't be turned off. You overall body dose may be low, but right where the cells are being irradiated the dose is potentially fatal. Once you get cell mutations that might develop into cancer and that is not treated in time.

To sum up. Accumulated dose, dose rate and normal background are not as important to us as ingesting the sources of "ionizing" radiation from contamination which is a different thing entirely. Detectors don't detect "sources" of radiation, they detect decay events which indicate nearby sources of radiation. An ingested bit of radioactive contamination might be a "low dose" over all but does considerable damage to cells local to its decay path.

Accumulated dose or dose rate mean nothing when comparing it to internal sources of radioactive contamination.

The continuous bombardment of "rays" can deform the cells genetic structure and cause mutations that give rise to cancer, even from one single decay event or "click".

There is no "safe level" or "low dose" in this regard.
edit on 16-1-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
 

I'll try to find the official reports over the next couple of days to get an idea of what the levels in California are, but nothing I've seen to date raises any alarms.

Greetings Zaphod58:

When we started this thread, we were postulating that 676 days of Fukushima fallout might somehow contribute to the current 'flu' epidemic...


We'll toss out some info for you "to get an idea of what the levels in California are."

April 18, 2011

Fukushima Forecast:

Uninterrupted line of radiation stretches across Pacific, tracking towards West Coast of U.S., Canada


LiveLink


The Norwegian Institute for Air Research (Norwegian: Norsk Institutt for luftforskning) or NILU is one of the leading specialized scientific laboratories in Europe researching issues related to air pollution, climate change and health.

NILU has a staff of scientists, engineers and technicians with specialized expertise for working on air pollution problems. The staff do more than two hundred projects annually for research councils, industries, international banks and local, national and international authorities and organizations. Its director since 2009 is Kari Nygaard.
Wiki



It's higher than normal of course,
but it's not high enough to cause health problems
unless it lingers for years,
which it won't because the weather will push it out
and cause lower readings as time goes on.

"It's higher than normal of course."

Now, why would you say that? Specifically, why, "of course"?

Maybe this?

April 21, 2011

Radioactive Fukushima Plutonium And Strontium Bombarding US West Coast Since March 18th


[color=fuchsia]EPA RADnet Reports Show Plutonium in US since March 18th
 
We found a more complete RADnet dataset for various radioactive isotopes we had previously not encountered.

Recently while searching the EPA RADnet database for radiation reports, we found a link to the main database.  It included the RADNet monitoring data for many isotopes not released in the public reports.

Notice that:
• RADnet began monitoring for Plutonium from Day 1 - March 11, 2011

Plutonium was found from Alaska to San Francisco California. and down into Guam from
March 18, 2011

Strontium was detected in the United States on March 18, 2011

• Isotopes found not released in public reports Plutonium, Strontium and Cesium

• What do the negative values mean in the results column? source


April 25, 2011

New EPA radiation tests show Cesium in California rainwater at highest level since crisis began


Precipitation RadNet Laboratory Analysis, EPA, April 25, 2011:

Richmond, California (San Francisco Bay Area), posted on April 25, collected April 14:

Cesium-134 @ 8.9 picoCuries/liter
Cesium-137 @ 7.9 pCi/l


In the EPA’s previous four tests of California precipitation, there was no Cesium-134 or 137 detected.

Areas in US with highest Cesium levels detected by EPA:



All EPA precipitation data posted April 25, 2011.


April 25, 2011

New type of Fukushima forecast shows radioactive Cesium, Iodine over large sections of U.S. and Canada


LiveLink


And there persists the rumor that all is well in the heartland ...
move along, there is nothing to see here ...


Dr. Helen Caldicott sums it up rather nicely in this video.


[color=magenta]Peace Love Light
tfw

Liberty & Equality or Revolution



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


It's higher than normal of course, because you're always going to have SOME increase in radiation around the world after an event like Fukushima. So of course you're going to see it higher.

Again, and most importantly what is background for California and the rest of these areas? You can't say "it's at dangerous levels! Look, it's 500% over background!" without saying what background IS. If background is 0.3 mRems, then 500% higher still isn't anything to worry about. Without knowing what "normal" is, then you can't say it's dangerous or it's not dangerous. That's what every one of these blogs does. They scream about how high the levels are, without giving the normal levels to compare them to. They also give a dose level, instead of a dose rate. As has been said in several posts, dose level is what matters, not dose (unless the dose is in the Rem or Sievert range). So what's the dose level for these readings? What's background? Without that information NO ONE can say whether it's dangerous or not. All you can say is that it's higher.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Thanks Zaphod. I wanted to apologize for that long winded rundown on radioactive contamination. I know you are more aware than others of its effects. Thought I would get detailed for any else that wonders about internal vs external "sources.

You did look at this part of your source link?

"myths" about "radiation"

That is all good for "woking" atomic reactors. Written by proponents of the industry. I also notice they don't include "ingestion" as one of the categories in their survey.

How many "hot particles " did you ingest today? ___





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join