Hi Radiation In Michigan From Japan

[cristinew]

NO NUKES PERIOD candles and wind peace.

[I wood]

I would have been way happier if it was all made up.

[peanutbutter]

I would have been way happier if it was all made up.

 

So would I.

 

I had to think hard before trying to warn people. To do so would obviously involve ridicule and a pretty large hit of my credibility.

 

It costs me to tell folks.

 

I believe our community can help with the resources we have available. So I'm stuck .. I have no choice. I MUST speak up.

[peanutbutter]

What would be the motivation of the Department of Energy to have a 'wish list' like that?

 

Power companies.

 

Many of the official watchers have, within their stated purpose, the promotion of nuclear power. Such as the International Atomic Energy Commission. Mandated in their charter.

The UN kicked the WHO out of the Chernobyl area and had the IAEC take their place.

The UN also shut down a fifty year old radiation data collection program just days after Japan blew up.

 

In Hiroshima they jailed people that claimed people were being made sick by the radiation. Including doctors.

 

To promote this form of power generation requires that the public feel safe about it. Thus the down play of ANY bad news.

 

There are many many billions of dollars at stake. Enough money to tempt many to sell all of mankind.

Edited July 31, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

And I thought this was original stuff we reading here. I see it comes from a site and now I understand the tone and background a little better.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Rule number one as taught in research methods class--Always look at who funded a study before you read it. No different here.

 

When you have people who are philosophically against nuclear power then they aren't going to support it. Furthermore, they will do anything to defeat it. If I'm against motorcycle riding because people die more readily from that mode of transportation then I'm sure as heck not going to author an article supporting it.

 

Ever see a professor, whom is a member of greenpeace, author an article that supports something that greenpeace is against? Not bloody likely.

 

With that said I am not claiming radiation in small doses is good for you. I don't know. I do know that I was told for 15 years that coffee was bad for me and then a study came out that showed it has health benefits such as a lowered risk of stomach cancer. I also know that there are people who work outside all of their lives and are exposed to sun radiation regularly. Some get skin cancer and some don't. There are also people who work inside. Some get skin cancer and some don't. There are also people who live in warmer climates. Even in the deep south in this country. I would GUESS, although I admittedly don't KNOW, that they are outside a lot more than we are up here. Yet skin cancer rates of incidence are actually lower in more than half of the deep south states than they are in MOST of the northern states. So, go figure. Clearly, for some, there are those who are genetically predisposed. Others are probably not only NOT predisposed but maybe also have a better way of destroying cancer cells within their bodies. Then there are those who get cancer based on only environmental exposure.

 

With that said we all engage in calculated risks. Some don't wear motorcycle helmets. Some golf and never wear sunscreen. Some eat high trans fat foods. We assess and assume risks every day. If we wanted to eliminate every risk on our lives (well at least a lot of them) then we could. We could never eat pizza. Eat Total cereal or bran flakes. Slather on the sunscreen, Even get a third shift job and sleep when the sun is at its highest in the sky.

[peanutbutter]

CL you're still on ignore. Your pot shots are undefended.

[purklize]

What are we going to do with all that waste? It will remain extremely hazardous for thousands if not millions of years. Can we really say we can manage the safekeeping of vast quantities of waste for such a length of time? The time elapsed since the pharaohs is a blink of the eye compared to the timescales we are considering here. We have enough waste to render the world uninhabitable.

 

If you look at the safety records of nuclear power plants, they are constantly experiencing problems and leaks. Everything we design is going to be flawed. If you have any experience writing software, you will understand this well. You probably know already how poor the regulation is, too. If a plant has a cracked pipe, instead of requiring them to fix it, they typically amend the rules so that it's acceptable.

 

Nuclear power is not even economical. No plant has ever been built with private dollars - the government builds them, and hands them over to private companies, who then get to enjoy the profits without the investment. Wind power, on the other hand, has been built by private investors. The idea that nuclear power is somehow more practical than wind is a myth.

 

There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation - this goes for any carcinogen. The risk to you personally may be miniscule in small doses, but when a broad population is exposed, and your research methods are refined enough, you can detect the deaths caused. Ultimately, all it takes is one single particle of radiation.

[Restorium2]

Power companies.

 

Many of the official watchers have, within their stated purpose, the promotion of nuclear power. Such as the International Atomic Energy Commission. Mandated in their charter.

The UN kicked the WHO out of the Chernobyl area and had the IAEC take their place.

The UN also shut down a fifty year old radiation data collection program just days after Japan blew up.

 

In Hiroshima they jailed people that claimed people were being made sick by the radiation. Including doctors.

 

To promote this form of power generation requires that the public feel safe about it. Thus the down play of ANY bad news.

 

There are many many billions of dollars at stake. Enough money to tempt many to sell all of mankind.

Your theory is that the Department of Energy is purposefully manipulating us, for the power companies. And this is because they can make more money off nuclear power than coal, correct?

[purklize]

It's not a theory, it's a fact. Look at the history of the IAEC, the AEC (and its abolition) and its successor agency, the NRC, for proof.

[Dr. Bob]

Would you be happier if I made it all up?

 

Actually, when I quote outside sources, I usually credit them so folks can evaluate the source. Give credit where credit is due, unless it is your own orignal work. That was the point.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

CL you're still on ignore. Your pot shots are undefended.

I don't post for your benefit so it really doesn't matter if you read my posts. If I have to counter your nonsense for the benefit of readers then that is what I'll do. You can stick your head in the sand. Makes no difference as I KNOW I'm not going to convince you. Frankly I prefer you keep me on ignore. That why I don't have to deal with your failed attempts at defending insane positions.

[peanutbutter]

Actually, when I quote outside sources, I usually credit them so folks can evaluate the source. Give credit where credit is due, unless it is your own orignal work. That was the point.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I've provided links every time I'm quoting.

[CaveatLector]

 

There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation - this goes for any carcinogen. The risk to you personally may be miniscule in small doses, but when a broad population is exposed, and your research methods are refined enough, you can detect the deaths caused. Ultimately, all it takes is one single particle of radiation.

Depends on how you define safe. The sun produces radiation. I know a lot of people who lived to ripe old ages without cancers or radiation sicknesses. So, define safe before you say something isn't safe. I can define safe in such a way that would define red meat, twinkies, car exhaust, trees, etc., as unsafe. "Safe" is all in the eye of the beholder. I never worse sunscreen and I'm not a young pup--not dead though.

 

Speaking of car exhuast, what is that doing to us? Maybe we should outlaw nuclear power, cars, and twinkies. Not necessarily in that order.

[peanutbutter]

Yeah .. confirmed. My rep has taken a 25% reduction in the last couple of weeks.

 

According to Klout, my reach went from 4000 people to 3000.

Edited July 31, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

Yeah .. confirmed. My rep has taken a 25% reduction in the last couple of weeks.

 

According to Klout, my reach went from 4000 people to 3000.

Why doesn't the coal lobby say something then?

[Dr. Bob]

The symptoms fit. There were two different inspections done to determine the cause, with no results.

 

They tried to identify the problem and haven't been able to do so.

 

So they crossed off everything they could think of.

 

And everyone refused to consider the last thing. Believing it to be impossible. Afraid of the ridicule.

 

What's more is that the Tamps EPA charts show something in the area. While the Jacksonville EPA equipment got turned off.

 

The EPA did the same thing whey the plant in Byron IL did it's release. They turned off the detectors that were down wind. Chicago had those radioactive gasses blow through downtown. No warning and no record.

 

The detectors in the Chicago area had been turned off. No warning .. no record.

 

Here is the EPA chart. notice the flat spot around June 11:

 

 

Here is an example- First you go on about this lack of detector data from Chicago and Jacksonville, but say 'something' was in Tampa. For your 'documentation' you show a chart from Jacksonville that shows a gap around June 9. What you DON'T show is the crucial piece of evidence your entire theory is based on, that Jacksonvill was flat and Tampa had 'something' as shown by the Tampa chart put up next to the Jacksonville chart. This is typical of you logic and evidence and leads you to the obvious conclusion that the kids in Disneyworld had radiation sickness and we should all wear tin foil hats, drink activated charcoal, and stock up on peanutbutter oil.

 

Lacking that, and with fresh eyes, let's look at your 'evidence' again. Yes there is a flat area around Sat June 9. But looking outsde of what you wanted to see, you will note a similar flat line on Sat 4-14, Sat 4-21, Sat 5-5, Sat 5-19, and Sunday June 24th. Notice anything Peanutbutter? It would seem the same 'unknown' government forces are turning off the equipment every weekend? That is a hell of a lot of radiation. And a lot of tin foil. What day were the kids exposed, hmmmm maybe a WEEKEND? Do you think the weekend might have something to do with it? Maybe when the monitoring station was closed?

 

Dr. Bob

[purklize]

Depends on how you define safe. The sun produces radiation. I know a lot of people who lived to ripe old ages without cancers or radiation sicknesses. So, define safe before you say something isn't safe. I can define safe in such a way that would define red meat, twinkies, car exhaust, trees, etc., as unsafe. "Safe" is all in the eye of the beholder. I never worse sunscreen and I'm not a young pup--not dead though.

 

Speaking of car exhuast, what is that doing to us? Maybe we should outlaw nuclear power, cars, and twinkies. Not necessarily in that order.

 

With cyanide, there is a safe dose at which it does no harm and has no potential to kill. With carcinogens, all it takes is one particle or one molecule to trigger the mutation that leads to cancer and death. There is a safe dose of cyanide, there is no safe dose of carcinogens. Your determination of what level of carcinogens you personally are willing to be exposed to is determined by your risk tolerance. Exposing a population to carcinogens causes deaths - but it's impossible to prove which deaths were caused by exposure to the carcinogen in question, and which were caused by other factors, so it's easy to spin it as harmless.

Edited July 31, 2012 by purklize

[Dr. Bob]

 

Here is an example- First you go on about this lack of detector data from Chicago and Jacksonville, but say 'something' was in Tampa. For your 'documentation' you show a chart from Jacksonville that shows a gap around June 9. What you DON'T show is the crucial piece of evidence your entire theory is based on, that Jacksonvill was flat and Tampa had 'something' as shown by the Tampa chart put up next to the Jacksonville chart. This is typical of you logic and evidence and leads you to the obvious conclusion that the kids in Disneyworld had radiation sickness and we should all wear tin foil hats, drink activated charcoal, and stock up on peanutbutter oil.

 

Lacking that, and with fresh eyes, let's look at your 'evidence' again. Yes there is a flat area around Sat June 9. But looking outsde of what you wanted to see, you will note a similar flat line on Sat 4-14, Sat 4-21, Sat 5-5, Sat 5-19, and Sunday June 24th. Notice anything Peanutbutter? It would seem the same 'unknown' government forces are turning off the equipment every weekend? That is a hell of a lot of radiation. And a lot of tin foil. What day were the kids exposed, hmmmm maybe a WEEKEND? Do you think the weekend might have something to do with it? Maybe when the monitoring station was closed?

 

Dr. Bob

 

"Most people we have interviewed did not even go to the doctor," he said. "They thought, in some of these interviews, that it was a simple stomach bug, and they got better within two to five days."

 

Reported symptoms include diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue and nausea.

 

Several people have reported their illnesses on DisBoards.com, a popular forum for Disney fans. One of those who posted said he or she was "extremely sick" by midnight the day after taking the tour, with vomiting that lasted for about five hours and pain, cramping and diarrhea that endured for more than a week. Another said his wife had to take him to the emergency room because of complications.

 

A third person said questioning from health officials has led her to think that they are zeroing in on hand washing and common items touched by guests during the tour, including binoculars.

 

Weister said investigators have tested some stool samples but were unable to find a pathogen. He also said there have not been widespread reports of vomiting, which is commonly found in cases of norovirus, a highly contagious illness that often erupts on cruise ships, in nursing homes and in other densely populated facilities.

 

That was from the Orlando paper. It was reported MONDAY the 11th after several people became ill in th few days prior to MONDAY. Looks like a viral infection or perhaps food poisoning. No mystery. Very common.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

With cyanide, there is a safe dose at which it does no harm and has no potential to kill. With carcinogens, all it takes is one particle or one molecule to trigger the mutation that leads to cancer and death. There is a safe dose of cyanide, there is no safe dose of carcinogens. Your determination of what level of carcinogens you personally are willing to be exposed to is determined by your risk tolerance. Exposing a population to carcinogens causes deaths - but it's impossible to prove which deaths were caused by exposure to the carcinogen in question, and which were caused by other factors, so it's easy to spin it as harmless.

How do we know it only takes one molecule to trigger a mutation? If you grill chicken, fish, etc., and burn it, however slightly, then eat it then you've ingested a carcinogen. Does that mean everyone who eats burned chicken will get cancer? I'm not so sure science has been able to pin cancer risk down to exposure to one molecule of a carcinogen. Carcinogens are all around us every day..

 

Now, realize that I am in no way arguing that radiation is good for you or that there is a safe dose. I don't know. I am playing devil's advocate. What I am saying is that I'm not sure ANYONE knows if there is a safe level. What I do know is that I have seen statistics that show x ray techs, on average, live longer than the general population. Why? I don't know and I'm not suggesting anything. Just throwing that out there.

[purklize]

How do we know it only takes one molecule to trigger a mutation? If you grill chicken, fish, etc., and burn it, however slightly, then eat it then you've ingested a carcinogen. Does that mean everyone who eats burned chicken will get cancer? I'm not so sure science has been able to pin cancer risk down to exposure to one molecule of a carcinogen. Carcinogens are all around us every day..

 

Now, realize that I am in no way arguing that radiation is good for you or that there is a safe dose. I don't know. I am playing devil's advocate. What I am saying is that I'm not sure ANYONE knows if there is a safe level. What I do know is that I have seen statistics that show x ray techs, on average, live longer than the general population. Why? I don't know and I'm not suggesting anything. Just throwing that out there.

 

I read some book by a retired researcher who worked for the government on radiation safety - he was pushed to conclude there were safe doses, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Ultimately he lost his position and was ostracized. I wish I could provide my source, but the book is at my mother's house and we're both busy at the moment. If I can I will get it to you.

 

I have a strong background in the relevant sciences and from what I've learned, it appears all it takes is that one molecule. Again, the chances may be infinitesimal, and it's up to your risk tolerance. However, when considering exposure of a large population, it is certain deaths will result, and the question becomes how many lives it is acceptable to end. Nuclear power is of course not alone here - coal is a notorious killer, producing huge quantities of carcinogens. The difference is much of the toxins from coal are spewed into the atmosphere, so we're witnessing the worst it can get - with nuclear power, only a tiny fraction escapes, and yet it still kills... just imagine what would happen if there were a major waste leak. Look at the last 50 years of history of nuclear power - we've had three major accidents, Fukushima almost resulting in a waste fire, which could have rendered Japan uninhabitable and left Chernobyl looking like a joke. All in 50 years... what about the next 500,000? Plutonium remains dangerous for a very, very long time... uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Some things should remain in the ground...

 

Ultimately, I am strongly opposed to nuclear power for three reasons:

 

-- It amounts to corporate welfare and is not at all economical

-- There is no solution to the waste problem

-- Humans always make errors and even modern nuclear reactors are guaranteed to have flaws

Edited July 31, 2012 by purklize

[CaveatLector]

I read some book by a retired researcher who worked for the government on radiation safety - he was pushed to conclude there were safe doses, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Ultimately he lost his position and was ostracized. I wish I could provide my source, but the book is at my mother's house and we're both busy at the moment. If I can I will get it to you.

 

I have a strong background in the relevant sciences and from what I've learned, it appears all it takes is that one molecule. Again, the chances may be infinitesimal, and it's up to your risk tolerance. However, when considering exposure of a large population, it is certain deaths will result, and the question becomes how many lives it is acceptable to end. Nuclear power is of course not alone here - coal is a notorious killer, producing huge quantities of carcinogens. The difference is much of the toxins from coal are spewed into the atmosphere, so we're witnessing the worst it can get - with nuclear power, only a tiny fraction escapes, and yet it still kills... just imagine what would happen if there were a major waste leak. Look at the last 50 years of history of nuclear power - we've had three major accidents, Fukushima almost resulting in a waste fire, which could have rendered Japan uninhabitable and left Chernobyl looking like a joke. All in 50 years... what about the next 500,000? Plutonium remains dangerous for a very, very long time... uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Some things should remain in the ground...

 

Ultimately, I am strongly opposed to nuclear power for three reasons:

 

-- It amounts to corporate welfare and is not at all economical

-- There is no solution to the waste problem

-- Humans always make errors and even modern nuclear reactors are guaranteed to have flaws

 

I would be interested in the book title but it isn't urgent.

 

I certainly wouldn't want unnecessary radiation in my body. However, I also realize there are risks all around us. We still don't know if cell phones affect our brains.

 

I would say that subjecting oneself to a "safe dose" of radiation is about the same thing as ingesting an unknown concotion. I wouldn't want either without knowing the risks involved.

[purklize]

Yeah - it really is all about acting within reason. We can't escape exposure to radiation or chemical carcinogens. I'm sure as hell not going to give up BBQs. It's just about risk management. If our only options were coal or nuclear, then in the short term, nuclear would save lives as it would result in the shutdown of coal plants. If we shut down both, many would die from heat exhaustion, lack of irrigation for crops (this takes energy), etc. etc... death is inevitable. We just need to be making sane, informed decisions as a global society - not as independent nation-states operated by corporate boards who care little for the interests of the broader population. Nuclear power may be good for some, but it does not serve the interests of humanity now, or in the long run.

[peanutbutter]

All I'm suggesting is that folks consider prudent conservative measures of self defense.

 

Charcoal. Inexpensive.

 

I've given up on trying to tell folks that the oil might help. That seems to be offensive to some folks.

[cristinew]

Charcoal Chaga and Oil,,

[Dr. Bob]

All I'm suggesting is that folks consider prudent conservative measures of self defense.

 

Charcoal. Inexpensive.

 

I've given up on trying to tell folks that the oil might help. That seems to be offensive to some folks.

 

Sorry, you don't get off that easy after all these pages of drivil.

 

YOU SIR analyze the graph as I did, point out the flaws in my observations and show the keen mind responsible for PB Oil. Your rigorous analysis of your own data will give all of us insight into the strength of your entire position. Tell us again how that graph clearly proves radiation sickness at Disney. We all want to hear how you reached your conclusions, and yes, show your work.

 

Dr. Bob