Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby Apache on March 10th, 2016, 8:29 am

Thanks for that info IC. At least there is Jones' data to go on. I know that cancer treatment is worse than the cancer it is supposed to cure, but it is quite telling that "official" online cancer websites make no mention of the overall nasty effect of chemo and radio therapy and avoid criticising the health "service" in any way.

So as not to get off topic I'll bring it back round to the nuke hoax:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/radiation/story.htm

“In the early 1940s Jack Aeby was a technician working with Emilio Segrè's research group at Los Alamos, USA. They, and other groups, were working in secret to develop an awesome weapon, dreadful enough, it was reasoned, to bring the war with Japan to an end. On Monday 16th July, 1945, Aeby was given permission to take a camera out into the New Mexico desert where the new weapon was to be detonated; the test was code-named Trinity.”

“At 5.29am the bomb was detonated. In the instant before the balloons and their detectors were destroyed they flashed their data back to recording instruments. Aeby was about 9 kilometres from ground zero.”


Did Aeby get cancer? No. Born 1923, died 2015 aged 91.

Wiki:
Aeby joined the Manhattan Project in 1942 and through his work with the Los Alamos National Laboratory witnessed nearly 100 nuclear explosions.


Wow, "witnessed" 100 nuclear detonations and no sign of exposure to any radiation despite only being about 5 miles from the Trinity blast. Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Teflon man".
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby simonshack on March 11th, 2016, 10:19 am

Apache wrote:Wow, "witnessed" 100 nuclear detonations and no sign of exposure to any radiation despite only being about 5 miles from the Trinity blast. Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Teflon man".


:lol: :lol: :lol: Indeed, dear Apache - Aeby, the aebyonic man!

I stumbled into this priceless "Nuke Bomb Tests" Art Gallery today. Enjoy :
http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/0 ... qus_thread

Two of my faves...
Image
Caption: ""Rope tricks" are seen in this image of a nuclear explosion taken less than one millisecond after detonation. During operation Tumbler-Snapper in 1952, this nuclear test device was suspended 300 feet above the Nevada desert floor, and anchored by mooring cables. As the ball of plasma expanded, the radiating energy superheated and vaporized the cables just ahead of the fireball, resulting in the "spike" effects."


Image
To be honest, I wouldn't mind hanging this painting in my living room - beats Warhol's canned soup anytime ! ^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby ICfreely on March 12th, 2016, 4:06 am

The Lacks-Well Equation

Welcome to the ancient city of Ramsar!

Motto: The Paradise on Earth (Behesht-e rooy-e Zamin)

IRAN - Iranian city of Ramsar welcomes tourists

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGna6kMlP44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGna6kMlP44

High Levels of Natural Radiation in Ramsar, Iran: Should Regulatory Authorities Protect the Inhabitants?
S. M. J. Mortazavi1 and P. A. Karam2

Abstract
Life evolved on Earth in radiation environment that was a few times more intense than today. People in some areas around the world live in dwellings with radiation and radon levels as much as more than 200 times the global average. Inhabited areas with high levels of natural radiation are found in different areas around the world including Yangjiang, China; Kerala, India; Guarapari, Brazil and Ramsar, Iran. Ramsar in northern Iran is among the world’s well-known areas with highest levels of natural radiation. Annual exposure levels in areas with elevated levels of natural radiation in Ramsar are up to 260 mGy y-1 and average exposure rates are about 10 mGy y-1 for a population of about 2000 residents. Due to the local geology, which includes high levels of radium in rocks, soils, and groundwater, Ramsar residents are also exposed to high levels of alpha activity in the form of ingested radium and radium decay progeny as well as very high radon levels (over 1000 MBq m-3) in their dwellings. In some cases, the inhabitants of these areas receive doses much higher than the current ICRP-60 dose limit of 20 mSv y-1. As the biological effects of low doses of radiation are not fully understood, the current radiation protection recommendations are based on the predictions of an assumption on the linear, no-threshold (LNT) relationship between radiation dose and the carcinogenic effects. Considering LNT, areas having such levels of natural radiation must be evacuated or at least require immediate remedial actions. Inhabitants of the high level natural radiation areas (HLNRAs) of Ramsar are largely unaware of natural radiation, radon, or its possible health effects, and the inhabitants have not encountered any harmful effects due to living in their paternal houses. In this regard, it is often difficult to ask the inhabitants of HLNRAs of Ramsar to carry out remedial actions. Despite the fact that considering LNT and ALARA, public health in HLNRAs like Ramsar is best served by relocating the inhabitants, the residents’ health seems unaffected and relocation is upsetting to the residents. Based on the findings obtained by studies on the health effect of high levels of natural radiation in Ramsar, as well as other HLNRAs, no consistent detrimental effect has been detected so far. However, more research is needed to clarify if the regulatory authorities should set limiting regulations to protect the inhabitants against elevated levels of natural radiation.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiation-hormesis.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FRamsarHLNRAPaper.doc


Color me crazy but I’m with those inhabitants who are largely unaware of natural radiation, radon, or its possible health effects. I don’t have any theories or symbols to prove my disbelief in LNT. I know it’s not University of CluesForum material but I’m posting it none the less!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby Larkness on May 26th, 2016, 1:21 pm

I've been involved in the US Navy's nuclear power program since the 1980's, was stationed on various nuke subs until the late 1990's. It's been my experience that exposure to ionizing radiation has become more conservative over the years with allowable limits going down. I recall some Navy training on new evaluations of expected medical consequences of acute high doses of radiation based on the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It seems that someone re-evaluated the amount of exposure that caused the deaths; it was less than previously thought. I suppose that in a city which no longer has much in the way of emergency services, a person is not as likely to live after receiving 100-200 rem of exposure while someone with access to functioning medical facilities would be expected to survive.

That said, while I occasionally work around significant sources of radiation, I don't fear it as it is readily measurable and I'm able to take precautions to reduce or eliminate (for the most part) my exposure.
Larkness
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 4:54 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby hoi.polloi on May 31st, 2016, 10:58 pm

Larkness wrote:I've been involved in the US Navy's nuclear power program since the 1980's, was stationed on various nuke subs until the late 1990's. It's been my experience that exposure to ionizing radiation has become more conservative over the years with allowable limits going down. I recall some Navy training on new evaluations of expected medical consequences of acute high doses of radiation based on the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It seems that someone re-evaluated the amount of exposure that caused the deaths; it was less than previously thought. I suppose that in a city which no longer has much in the way of emergency services, a person is not as likely to live after receiving 100-200 rem of exposure while someone with access to functioning medical facilities would be expected to survive.

That said, while I occasionally work around significant sources of radiation, I don't fear it as it is readily measurable and I'm able to take precautions to reduce or eliminate (for the most part) my exposure.


Larkness' claims about his role on nuclear programs are not proven, but even if it were true, this is a rather vague account. Wouldn't the "consequences expected" be based on the Red Cross numbers based in Seoul, Korea and wouldn't he know enough to quote the particulars behind the discrepancy? "Less than previously thought" is a kind of passive way to phrase it as well.

What would qualify as "functioning medical facilities" exactly?

One almost expects the next "ex-Naval officer" to come here will post something like, "The levels of reality in the 9/11 footage are less than previously thought."
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Previous

Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests