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.

 

Radioactive Organic Jam On Store Shelves In US, UK, Elsewhere: Title of article

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


No, it's a simple fact. You can't point at one source and say that's the only radiation you're exposed to. You are exposed to a lot of sources daily. You can't say that "I ate this jam, and it's radioactive, so that's why I got cancer". That's not the only radiation you're exposed to on a daily basis.

And no, it's not downplaying anything. It's simply stating a fact, that also explains why some places have higher background levels today than they did a few months ago, while others right near them don't. Yes Fukushima and Chernobyl are going to have long term effects, of course they will. But to think that they're the only sources of radiation around that are causing radiation increases is naive at best.




posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


All radiation can leave behind mutated cells. It doesn't matter if it's from a nuclear meltdown, or if it's from Granite. The type of radiation is the key. An Alpha or Beta particle is less likely to, as you have to ingest them to get them in your body. But a Gamma emitter will penetrate your skin and get into your body.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Zaphod58
Do you know how much radiation you are exposed to on a daily basis? From non-nuclear sources (ie nuclear power, nuclear waste, etc)? Coal plants? Radioactive waste. Granite? Radioactive. The list goes on and on, and some levels are surprising as to how much you're exposed to.

Its what you ingest that matters most. The ionizing radiation you receive from sources in the environment around you pass thru you and are gone. You can walk away from that source. Sources of radiation that you ingest are carried with you no matter where you go.

Big difference. If you swallow a mini X-ray machine that can't be turned off, that is a lot different than getting a chest X-ray at the doctors. At the doctors they turn the machine on and off and then you leave the office. The particle of radioactive material inside you keeps emitting and stays with you 24/7.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

gortex

I would say the damage was done well before the Chernobyl disaster , radioactive jam is the least of our worries .

The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1945 and 1992, including 216 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests

The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1949 and 1990, including 219 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests.

The People's Republic of China conducted 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground

en.wikipedia.org...


Our leaders sealed our fate years ago



edit on 11-11-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)


This is true, all that effort was in order to find very effective ways to kill masses of people at one time - the same human targets paid for the effort. The byproduct left a residue that happens to cause all kinds of problems, problems no researcher in his right mind would ever spend any energy on looking into. DARPA hands out cash to anyone who can find ways to control or kill masses of humans, they are not handing out a dime to determine the effect the radiation currently lying around has on the Earth herself, or the humans ability to express themselves. Any researcher who said, "uh, this radiation thing is causing serious damage to..." is soon to be unemployed and marginalized.

It is interesting to me how the apologists never distance themselves from these bomb facts, they simply use them to say things like, "well there is a lot of radiation around from bombs, so shut up about Fukashima and what not." They were taught a manipulative form a of logic rather then a complete form of expression.

There is a point, a definitive point, where there is too much. We will get to see that point when the waste at Fukashima is detonated. Even the apologists will feel it then in a very real, "oh my god what is happening to me" kind of way.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


That radiation you were exposed to 30 years ago does leave your body it just takes time to purge it. It doesn't leave right away, but eventually it will.

Unless its absorbed into bone or connective tissues. There it will stay and accumulate. Many radioactive elements like cesium (XXX), are misidentified by the body as the natural bone builder Cesium and are retained by the body. The bodies immune system doesn't detect radiation, just the damage from it. Meanwhile, the marrow in our bones near the radioactive cesium produces mutated red blood cells that give rise to diseases like leukemia.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



You can't say that "I ate this jam, and it's radioactive, so that's why I got cancer". That's not the only radiation you're exposed to on a daily basis.

The jam is not radioactive, the radioactive contamination in the jam is internalized and irradiates the body from the inside. Much more dangerous than "granite".



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


All radiation can leave behind mutated cells. It doesn't matter if it's from a nuclear meltdown, or if it's from Granite. The type of radiation is the key.

Some cells are destroyed and die, some heal and may mutate the next time they divide. These mutations can give rise to cancer. What maters is how large a dose you receive from a source of radiation. If the source is internal, inside the body, then the amount of radiation the body receivers from that source is many times what you may get from "background" outside the body.

There is no surety that the internal source will be "purged" from the body either. It depends on where it lodges once internalized. Bones and connective tissues are more permanent than other parts of the body like the blood or organs.

It does very much matter where the radiation comes from. Contamination from a melt down are the worst as they are small (smaller than atoms even) and move freely through the environment. Wind, ocean currents, and animal life all transport nuclides and isotopes in the big mixer of earth's biosphere.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


So if my house has an emission source in it that I'm exposed to constantly, that's better than a meltdown?



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
 


So if my house has an emission source in it that I'm exposed to constantly, that's better than a meltdown?

(loud buzzer noise), no trick questions. You need to define the "source in your house".

And nothing is worse than a full meltdown of a GE BWR. To date this is the single largest ongoing release of radioactive contamination on the planet.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


So that meltdown halfway around the world is worse than any emission source I have in my house? Or near my house? Sources like that coal plant down the road. Or say I got something under my house, or even in my house I didn't realize was an emitter, such as sandstone or granite (both of which can contain uranium or other materials), or something else. Fukushima is worse than having those around all the time? I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
It is for sure hard to know if you have ingested radioactive substances. Sounds like flu symptoms. Headache, nausea, tired if low doses, and at higher doses immediate vomiting and diarreah. With children it's more dangerous if iodine is present as the thyroid will absorb up to 20% while expelling the rest. With an adult it's about half of that. I don't think they test for this in hospitals unless it's known someone has been exposed so it's going to be way harder to figure out if it's happening unless severe and many all at once.

No need for someone to put biological agents in our food to spread terror. We have done it all on our own. A potential slow and undetectable killer. I personally don't have a Geiger counter and I'm guessing most don't. Our bodies and faith in regulators are the only gauges most have.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
A discovery channel documentary about Chernobyl that is well worth the time to watch




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Sorry, Zaphod, I was busy yesterday and I couldn't get back to you till this am.


So that meltdown halfway around the world is worse than any emission source I have in my house?
Once the fallout reaches you, yes.


Sources like that coal plant down the road.

You mean an operating reactor, or one in meltdown? The difference is a coal plant burns coal. A plant in meltdown burns fuel rods.


Or say I got something under my house, or even in my house I didn't realize was an emitter, such as sandstone or granite (both of which can contain uranium or other materials), or something else. Fukushima is worse than having those around all the time? I don't think so.

Fukushima is worse than all those things, yes. The proof is you are living in your house without ill effects, No one lives in or near the plants and won't for a very long time.

Here is a foray into #3. The white spots on the screen are gamma rays striking the CCD chip in the camera. The activity picks up as the camera goes deeper into the building until it goes ballistic at about the 1 minute mark. If you were in there for even a minute you would receive a lethal dose.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

intrptr
The difference is a coal plant burns coal. A plant in meltdown burns fuel rods.


And have you bothered to look into what comes out of coal? Even so called "clean" coal?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Zaphod58

intrptr
The difference is a coal plant burns coal. A plant in meltdown burns fuel rods.


And have you bothered to look into what comes out of coal? Even so called "clean" coal?


Yep some coal plants in China will probably kill everyone down wind in X number of years. USA coal fired plants with EPA mandated scrubbers are cleaner but still have their problems...

I have not seen a recall of JAM based on coal dust though.

IMO we could have gone with distillers and alcohol fired power plants if it had not been for wanting nuclear bombs. You can make alcohol out of just about any plant mass... The coffee growers of the world could probably supply a large percent of their energy needs if they just used the discarded husk/fruit from the coffee bean.. There are allot of directions we could have gone or still could that would be much more beneficial for the planet and organisms but it appears the political will or intelligence/smarts is not there.
edit on 12-11-2013 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yes. Coal fly ash is contaminated and working nuclear reactors produce less harmful emissions than a working coal plant. The key word being "working'. A nuclear power plant that melts down and explodes is not "working".

www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


One of the things with coal is that they have such a massive lobby behind them, you never will see anything about it advertised. Some of the numbers are scary though, if you can find them.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


There are allot of directions we could have gone or still could that would be much more beneficial for the planet and organisms but it appears the political will or intelligence/smarts is not there.

Don;t forget to follow the money. The powerful nuclear lobby has too much vested interest in maintaining the status quo vis a vie, furthering their goals as opposed to allowing any energy alternatives to come to fruition.

That lobby includes the US military which depends heavily on the by products of reactors for nuclear bombs.

Add in the heavily lobbied and complicit elected representatives and thats three strikes against change.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join