FukuFlu/Fallout Fluenza/Radiation Rainouts Target North America

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 




from Ariesjeidi page1 "It is more a fungus than a virus".

Now if you go www.cancerisafungus.com... and see what perhaps is the biggest eyeopener as to what cancer really is, then we'll be in for a big spike in cancers from moulds/fungii that will try to be explained away...
What got me to seriously look at alternative definitions of "cancer" is the simple fact that smoking rates have been on the decline for years and yet cancers continue to rise. Is it what they're putting in packaged or in vaccinations or as stated in some recent threads..."the so called safe threshold for radiation was increased

From dprogram.net... FDA ignores science showing dangers of irradiation, claims there are no safety issues This careless dismissal by the FDA is completely bogus, of course, as the CFS and many other groups have repeatedly offered valid scientific evidence showing that irradiating food denatures its quality, nutritional value, and safety. The production of “unique radiolytic products,” for instance, which include various mutagens, or radioactive substances, is one major negative byproduct of irradiation that is both proven and undeniable. (www.centerforfoodsafety.org...)

So dont worry you wont suddenly keel over and die. Your life span will probably decrease to 65 so they got a productive life out of you, no retirement to pay, and plenty of illness's to keep Medicine in business: Depopulation Agenda maybe?




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Even ingesting a small amount doesn't mean you're in terrible danger of cancer or other diseases. It increases the risk much more than just exposure does, but you still have to look at the amount ingested, the type of radiation it is emitting, etc. And if you do manage to ingest some, there are ways to flush your system and clear most if not all of it out.

A small dose ingested increases your long term chances of cancer, but you're still talking 15-20+ years down the road in most cases. If you're predisposed to cancer, or had cancer before, then it increases more.

hps.org...

There's a lot more to radiation than most people realize. You can't just scream "radioactive" and we all fall down dead, which is what a lot of people seem to be trying to get you to think. Yes, radiation is dangerous, but the best thing anyone can do is to educate yourself on it. It's much more complex, and much more interesting than just "radiation = death" that probably 80% of people think.

A good example is the amount you get downwind from a coal plant. "Clean coal" is up to 100x nastier than any nuclear powerplant ever built will ever emit. You are talking thousands of tons of just about every type of particle there is being emitted over the life of a coal plant. It's a little frightening.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

but you're still talking 15-20+ years down the road


Okay, but, I'm in my 20s. And what if I ever want kids?

My point is, this is all reckless. And believe me, I eat the bentonite and the vitamin C like candy. I can only hope it flushes everything from my system.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by manicminxx
 


The 15-20 years down the road is very conservative. You can't even say for sure that you will get cancer even if you ingest particles. Just that the chances of it happening go up, at a much later point in your life. Even ingesting them doesn't necessarily mean you can't have kids either. There are so many factors that come in to play that you can't say anything without already knowing a lot of specifics, and even then almost all of it is going to be a WAG.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Even ingesting a small amount doesn't mean you're in terrible danger of cancer or other diseases.
It most certainly does. After all that time I took to help you understand you just wave it away with a single sentence.
Everyone listen up. Zaphod says its all a "WAG".

Nothing to see here, move along...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I never said that, so stop putting words in my mouth. Did you bother to read the link I included? Obviously not. If you ingest an alpha particle, it emits the width of a single cell, so it affects that much of your tissue, per particle. A beta particle doesn't go much farther than that. Yes, it's going to affect you, but it's going to depend on a lot of intangible factors. Predisposition to cancer, amount ingested, etc.

Since you couldn't be bothered to read:


What are some of the effects of ingesting alpha, beta, or gamma rays? Can you please be specific on the effect caused by alpha rays and the amount of counts need for damage to occur?




Lower doses would not cause any directly observable effects but could increase the person's likelihood of developing cancer by a small degree many years—20 years, 30 years, or even more—after the exposure.

The specific type of cancer depends on what tissue(s) is(are) irradiated as well as the dose. The slight additional cancer risk is related to the dose, the dose rate, and the type of cancer. Thus it is not possible to say how many counts or alpha particles are needed to produce an effect; what we can say is that each increment of dose increases the chance of developing a radiation-induced cancer, but that the risk overall is very small and very much less than the risk of developing the cancer from other sources. So that is the simple answer.

The more complex and scientific answer requires that we exactly define some terms to eliminate any chance of confusion. Alpha, beta, and gamma are radiations emitted by radioactive substances or, to use the scientific term, radionuclides. Technically, one does not ingest the radiations but rather the radioactive material that produces these radiations. An analogy from everyday life would be onions or garlic, foods which have powerful odors. The odors are analogous to the radiations emitted by a radioactive substance. The onions or garlic which give rise to the odors are analogous to the radionuclide or radioactive substance.

Radioactive elements taken into the body are known as internal emitters because the radiations associated with them are produced directly inside the body. Gamma rays produced from internal emitters by and large escape from the body and only deposit a very small fraction of their energy in the tissues of the body.

Beta particles, which are simply high-speed electrons, deposit all of their energy in a very small volume of tissue; they travel up to perhaps a centimeter or so (about a quarter of an inch) in soft tissue.

Alpha particles have a range or travel distance of about one cell diameter, and thus deposit all of their energy in a very small volume of tissue. The deposition of energy is called absorbed dose and is one of the factors that determines the biological effect.



The effective dose is a measure of the risk of producing cancer over the entire lifetime of the person. Only certain types of cancers are known to be radiation induced, and the probability or chance of developing a radiation-induced cancer over one's lifetime is very small, indeed very much smaller than the so-called natural incidence of these cancers in the general population.

In summary, response to radiation is determined by the following factors:
the magnitude of the absorbed dose
the rate at which the absorbed dose is delivered
the biological effectiveness of the radiation which is determined by its linear energy transfer
the specific tissue(s) irradiated
other factors specific to the individual

hps.org...

Once again, you can't simply say "if you ingest radiation you're going to get cancer". It depends on many other factors included. At best it's a WAG if you are going to or not, and it's going to be a long time before you get anything showing up, unless you ingest a very large dose.

And I didn't need you to "help me understand" about radiation. I spent over seven years working around it, and learning quite a bit about it, so I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp of it.
edit on 1/16/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Once again, you can't simply say "if you ingest radiation you're going to get cancer."

You can't "ingest radiation". That statement shows you don't have a grasp on the subject.
If you cannot make the distinction between "radiation" and "radioactive contamination" there is no point in trying to discuss it further.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Oh my god, so because I don't get the terms to your satisfaction you think you know it all and I know nothing? Wow. You're right, there is no point in discussing it with you since you're just going to twist everything I say and act like you know it all and no one else knows a damn thing.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Thats not true either. I have high regard for you.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


I know how much work went into this thread. It is always so alarming to see where we live covered in the red zone. Do you suppose the flu we have seen this year could have been radiation related? I read where you stated the opinion that our immunity was compromised, but is it possible in your thoughts about the last wave of flu pandemic?

Interesting and colorful OP. I liked it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.



Greetings:

Again, Zaphod58, you make a valid point and we look forward to the thoughtful information that you bring to the table.

Please allow us to add to the information database and talk about what 'background' is.

Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is about ionizing radiation. For microwave background radiation from space, see cosmic background radiation and cosmic background. Thermal radiation emitted by Earth is not considered in this category because it is not ionizing.

Background radiation is the ubiquitous ionizing radiation that the general population is exposed to, including natural and artificial sources.

Both natural and artificial background radiation varies by location.




Visual Chronology of Nuclear Events 1941-2004 USA

Do we have your attention yet?

“Atmospheric nuclear testing reached a peak of 0.11 mSv in 1963 and declining since..”

Oh, really?
We have relatives in Cedar City, Utah, who might beg to differ.




The energy released from a nuclear weapon detonated in the troposphere can be divided into four basic categories:[1]
• Blast—40–50% of total energy
• Thermal radiation—30–50% of total energy
• Ionizing radiation—5% of total energy (more in a neutron bomb)
• Residual radiation—5–10% of total energy


In 1942 there was some initial speculation among the scientists developing the first nuclear weapons that there might be a possibility of igniting the Earth's atmosphere with a large enough nuclear explosion.

But, they went ahead anyway...


Just push my button




Xenon-133 6-10 April 2011 atmospheric dispersion USA.


And this from the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR III),

Japan radiation risk to California is downplayed - Los Angeles Times


David McIntyre, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, said his office was working Tuesday with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "to project the jet stream and the path that any radiation might take."


[color=fuchsia]WTF?
This David McIntyre?


The Department of Energy activated its atmospheric radioactivity monitoring center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the Bay Area to create sophisticated computer models of how radioactive releases at Fukushima will spread into the atmosphere, according to a high-ranking energy department official. But he cautioned that "we've got to get good data to put into it for it to be

a reliable predictor and basis for people entrusted with public safety to make decisions."

Even without detailed data, some experts said the radiation in Japan posed little danger to the U.S.






























We hope we didn't poke too many holes in some people's trust of the USGOV/EPA/NOAA ...





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



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
All I know is just prior to Fukushima, David Rockefeller took his entire clan, all of his family, nephews and nieces, to India. Now, he's also one of the major cmponents of the black operations and was behind fukushima in the views of some. But that tells me that the fall out is significant.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


We already went through this. Your reasoning was thoroughly debunked.

Most of the radioactive particles are inhaled, and coughed up, else pass through your system.

Not only this, ingesting radioactive particles, alpha, or beta, doesn't mean you'll get cancer if it stays in your system for years.

Can't believe you're still getting stars for your poor reasoning.
edit on 29-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

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.


Reading comprehension fail.

Please note the use of the word, "usually".

You can deny my reasoning presented, but this is your err, and a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

That you don't offer an apology only shows your lack of decent character.

If you bothered to read up on the links I provided, surely you would admit you are in the wrong.

End of discussion with you.
edit on 29-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


We already went through this. Your reasoning was thoroughly debunked.

Whose "we"?


Most of the radioactive particles are inhaled, and coughed up, else pass through your system.

Only takes one, potentially. And once embedded in bone it is there for your lifetime. A tiny x ray machine _you_cannot_ turn_off.


...ingesting radioactive particles, alpha, or beta, doesn't mean you'll get cancer if it stays in your system for years.

Oh yes it does. The longer the exposure time the more likely to give rise to a ton of ailments, not just "cancer".


Can't believe you're still getting stars for your poor reasoning.

"Reason" has nothing to do with it.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

reply to post by unityemissions
 

End of discussion with you.

Okay...


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.


Two_Different_Things.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   


How about this from our friend Mike:

The cesium deception: Why the mainstream media is mostly reporting iodine levels, not radioactive cesium

Why eating radioactive food is FAR more dangerous than nuclear fallout


The other element in all this that's hardly being reported in the press is that when you eat radioactive food, the threat to your health increases exponentially. That's because internal radiation is far more deadly to your body than external radiation. It all comes down to the law of the inverse square of the distance between you and the radiation source.

A speck of radioactive dust that's one meter away from you, for example, is twice as dangerous as that same speck four meters away. But if you eat that radioactive speck (because it's part of a fish you're consuming, for example), then suddenly it's inside your body.

So now it might only be a millimeter away from your internal tissues, meaning you've decreased the distance between you and the radiation source by one thousand times. Because if the law of the inverse square of the distance, you have now magnified the radiation intensity by one million times (because one million is the square of one thousand).

So a speck of radiation that might have been a "low level" if it were floating around in the air around you can suddenly become fatal if you consume it. And that's what people are now facing with Japan's seafood.

Yet everybody is being told that it's all perfectly safe, no problem, no worried, don't even think about it.


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



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 





posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
so can the inhalation or ingestion of different radionuclides cause a condition in the body where immune system resources are being used up to where an individual no longer has the abundance of resources to fight off the flu.?

I'm guessing the answer is yes.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3
so can the inhalation or ingestion of different radionuclides cause a condition in the body where immune system resources are being used up to where an individual no longer has the abundance of resources to fight off the flu.?

I'm guessing the answer is yes.



the answer is, yes.

and to our anima respondent "...this thread again..." , is your response cogent in your opinion ? does it foster discussion and contemplation? or does it offer nothing...intellectually speaking . Perhaps you live on planet Earth and understand how badly fuku and the resulting physical political response has, how shall I say , 'let down ' almost everyone whom has been and will be paying for it..

In case you are unsure: these are not questions...what has been ( and is being ) done to the world at fukushima , that benefits a few that have proven to be lying consistently to profit from the death and pollution of millions, is a crime, defend it if you want ..and can ...but time and reality are not on your side ,





top topics
 
40
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join