It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do NOT allow your elderly loved ones or children to fly on airplanes!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Look I expalined to you in your first thread on ATS that we need proof, If you don't supply that proof or even a link your thread will be moved (like they have been).
Don't throw your dummy out of the pram because I among many here will take everything you say as just made up BS, you even admitted in one of your threads you were just having a laugh.

Now provide links and proof to your claims please.

Also people have proved all your claims are just plain wrong but continue to come up with wild crazy claims.
(Just see your final nail in the coffin for science thread)
A person who is unwilling to admit they are wrong even though the truth is staring them in the face is either stupid or mentally ill.
edit on 31-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


Here is a link there boymonkey to look at. It is about the classification of pilots and flight attendants as radiation workers. hps.org... The site seems legit. The thing about this is that frequent fliers are exposed to a lot of radiation. That was strange, that the first cut and paste came up with those words.
edit on 31-7-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 





If you trust that they have everything under control, always, then by all means...FLY, fly away!


Hey!....this is your thread matey!....I'm just responding to your fantastical claims!

You claimed that elderly people and children shouldn't fly because they will be prone to radiation poisoning due to anomalies in the magnetic sphere.......correct?

I then put it to you that surely all the pilots and cabin crews around the world would be suffering from radiation poisoning........with me so far?

You then claimed that airlines routinely divert around these anomalies!

Can you see the problem with your premise yet?.......take a few minutes and think about it



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Childishly calling people names because they ask for proof of your claims; well, that's childish.

If you have no proof for these wild and crazy theories, at least be mature enough to say so.

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Did you actually read it?


Pilots flying high-altitude, high-latitude routes do receive exposures that put them in the top five percent of all radiation workers when ranked by dose. Even so, their exposures are generally no greater than half of the value which is permissible under the more strict European (compared with US) occupational standards. For male and female pilots, the primary risk of many years of exposure at these levels is the possibility of a small increase, about 1%, in their lifetime risk of cancer. For female pilots, issues related to pregnancy may also apply (other answers on this site address those concerns). Although the presumed increase in cancer risk is small, it is the right of all flight crewmembers to make a choice about the personal acceptability of this risk based on sound scientific principles and educated decision making.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This is like the third or fourth thread I have seen from the OP like this.

It is tinfoil hat mumbo jumbo mixed in with a few facts. I swear these are joke threads they have to be. Hey I feel for one of them and responded in a serious manner to no avail.

These threads are what some call pulling your leg.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Thanks for the link but it is the OP who is supposed to provide them, that is my point.

It says that the increased chance of getting Cancer is about 1% in their lifetimes (pilots and stewards etc) no where does it say that children and elderly people should not fly.
It is fear mongering at its finest this.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Even given that, the increase in radiation levels to aircraft crew and passengers is not very large. For example, during normal solar weather, one can expect to receive a radiation dose of about 71 µSv (about 7.1 mrem) flying from the eastern United States to Australia and about 85 µSv flying to Japan (the Japanese flight is farther north, where the Earth's magnetic field is weaker). This level of radiation dose is about the same as a week's worth of natural background radiation. Studies have not shown that this level causes any harm to those exposed.


hps.org...

Yes, you receive more radiation than normal, but that doesn't really mean it's bad for you. We get exposed to radiation from birth to death.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Haha, I just wished I had thought of that



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


No, you haven't given crap, except your opinion. You don't even begin to understand radiation, or shielding. You should try understanding it, before you start throwing things out there that you don't have a clue about. Like what type of radiation comes from GCRs, and solar winds. Then the type of shielding that works to block out the radiation.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


I don't see any problem. If you need more help on these concepts though, that's what I'm here for.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Actually, the op is good.
Did you know in the 60's, pilots weren't living past 60.....then in 76 or so they protected the flight deck from the radar with more shielding....didn't work by the 1980 mark....
plus stewardesses had 7 times the normal miscarriage rate...



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dorkfish87
 


But look at your words to me. Isn't that hypocritical? Don't worry, I'll answer for you: yes, yes it is.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


It seems like you are the one that needs to be better informed. Not only on this subject; but on the debate process itself. Otherwise I don't think you'll be received very well on these forums.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Do we have to remind you of a certain naivety for believing they are going to tell us the REAL dangers?



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 





I don't see any problem. If you need more help on these concepts though, that's what I'm here for.


Hmm....now your making less sense than you usually do


Can you answer the points I raised in my post above or not?.........I'm guessing not



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


All I hear is

blah blah blah I can't debunk any bit of it with science so I'm going to do the lowball method and ridicule and try and sway weak minded people.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dorkfish87
 


So next time you get a chest xray, make sure you don't wear that protective lead vest, and make sure you keep the power cranked for hours, then come back here and report your condition. If you're able.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
This member is clearly a troll. "Insert wild claim here, and damn you to hades if you ask for even a sliver of evidence besides me saying I know better than you."

Then others post links to evidence counterthetical to the posters claims and get "Oh sure, they'd tell you the truth."


Why not show evidence, either to support the claim you made, or at the very least evidence to suggest that the evidence presented cannot be trusted.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



If you understood it then it would be easy for you to debunk my science, but you can't and you haven't...because you can't.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



If you understood it then it would be easy for you to debunk my science, but you can't and you haven't...because you can't.


You haven't shown any evidence to support your "science"



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join