Hi Radiation In Michigan From Japan

[peanutbutter]

Yes KI is recommended to block absorption of radiation. I would suspect having it on hand with the health department would be a routine part of the licensure process for a nuclear power plant. I seem to recall reading something about this one in particular, so it might make sense to put out a notice that the pills were available- if for no other reason that to make sure the public was aware in response to increased awareness of the facility due to a news report.

 

I also get a good newsletter on northern lights activity put out by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. Did anyone get to see the show? We didn't see any in Clare.

 

Yes .. that was a reminder that our government has already warned us. It was included as a part of a public notice that Palisades has been shut down again this morning.

[Dr. Bob]

 

Look at the Iodine content.

 

Yeah, and look at the ash content!

Pretty dry too... just remember to mix it into a slurry so it can be consumed.

[solabeirtan]

and thank you Dr Bob.... Also seems of interest:

Massachusetts congressman raises concerns over Palisades nuclear power plant's most recent shutdown. yet MI Legislatures dont seem any need to be concerned.

 

massachusetts_congressman

 

Acadiana, LA also concerned about: source-of-palisades-cooling-water-leak-found - <<<TODAY

Edited August 13, 2012 by solabeirtan

[CaveatLector]

Mass. Congressman Markey is a well-known opponent to nuclear anything. He raises concerns over the mere existence of nuclear power so he is sure to raise concern over this. I guess my point is that just because he is concerned doesn't necessarily mean a reasonable person has cause for alarm.

[solabeirtan]

I'm sure it may seem like that. His #1 priority is Energy Policy (he claims). To give hime some credit and some consideration for his concern over our safety:

 

"Markey has been a longtime critic of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He has been critical of the NRC's decision-making on the proposed Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design and the NRC response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.^[8][9] In 2011 Markey also criticized Republicans and Tea Party members of scientific illiteracy, saying "Rick Perry and these other guys are allergic to science...too many of the tea party people, who basically don’t believe in science, are now controlling the Republican Party."^[10]"

 

Ed_Markey wiki

 

Not at all satisfied with their performance either, the AEC, the NRC, or whatever initials they may be represented by. They flat out have NOT done their jobs at all.

[CaveatLector]

Well when you get down to it, the use of nuclear power is a philosophical issue and there will always be extremists on either end. On the one hand you have what you quoted above, where Dems accuse the republicans of not using science in that regard. On the other hand you have the dems saying coal burning generators are bad because of global warming. You also have those that say rivers dams are bad. So I suppose we could shut down all forms of electrical power generation except wind turbines. But then I suppose those are going to kill the odd bluejay... We could just turn the US into one giant hippie commune and stop driving pollution belching cars too.

 

It's a philosophical debate in which I won't partake because there will never be an end nor a convincing of anyone on either side. It's a risk/reward analysis. Who here wants to stop using electricity? A good start would be turning off computers. I suppose, in the end, people will decide whether they feel safe enough to live near, or downwind from, nuclear power plants. Everyone else can put as much distance between nuclear power and themselves as humanly possible.

[peanutbutter]

Yeah, and look at the ash content!

Pretty dry too... just remember to mix it into a slurry so it can be consumed.

 

Umm .. they don't do that for the capsules you can purchase in nearly every drug store, over the counter.

 

The slurry you mentioned is used for drug overdoses in an ER.

[Dr. Bob]

Umm .. they don't do that for the capsules you can purchase in nearly every drug store, over the counter.

 

The slurry you mentioned is used for drug overdoses in an ER.

 

Yes, that is how it is used internally. Remember...doctor. Unlike 99% of everyone on this board, I've actually given folks A.C., many times.

[peanutbutter]

Yes, that is how it is used internally. Remember...doctor. Unlike 99% of everyone on this board, I've actually given folks A.C., many times.

 

I see .. so those pills in the drug stores .. what do people do with those?

[Dr. Bob]

They come in a set with tinfoil hats. They do little if anything.

 

The effective dose of charcoal is about 0.5 to 1.0 gram per kg. body weight.

 

Seriously PB, are you going to argue with a physician about a medical procedure?

 

Those capsules are about 2/3 gram each (yes I looked). Indication? Absorbing gas (rather questionable in my opinion) and toxins (perhaps homeopathic amounts).

[peanutbutter]

They come in a set with tinfoil hats. They do little if anything.

 

The effective dose of charcoal is about 0.5 to 1.0 gram per kg. body weight.

 

Seriously PB, are you going to argue with a physician about a medical procedure?

 

Those capsules are about 2/3 gram each (yes I looked). Indication? Absorbing gas (rather questionable in my opinion) and toxins (perhaps homeopathic amounts).

 

Homeopathic amounts were what we are dealing with now. Are you saying that there is much more radioactive fallout than I've been saying?

[solabeirtan]

Well when you get down to it, the use of nuclear power is a philosophical issue and there will always be extremists on either end. On the one hand you have what you quoted above, where Dems accuse the republicans of not using science in that regard. On the other hand you have the dems saying coal burning generators are bad because of global warming. You also have those that say rivers dams are bad. So I suppose we could shut down all forms of electrical power generation except wind turbines. But then I suppose those are going to kill the odd bluejay... We could just turn the US into one giant hippie commune and stop driving pollution belching cars too.

 

It's a philosophical debate in which I won't partake because there will never be an end nor a convincing of anyone on either side. It's a risk/reward analysis. Who here wants to stop using electricity? A good start would be turning off computers. I suppose, in the end, people will decide whether they feel safe enough to live near, or downwind from, nuclear power plants. Everyone else can put as much distance between nuclear power and themselves as humanly possible.

 

It could be a philosophical debate, regarding the pros and cons, of the various methods of energy creation. We may be on track to create a safe method and wind generators are a big step into using existing energy before it as well as US turn into fossil material.

 

The part I contend is that is not debatable is why have the AEC?NRC/US Govt not dealt with the spent fuel problem. The most glaring #1 problem for over 60 years now. Obama actually vetoed their proposed Yucca Mtn idea, yet there has been no further announcements, studies or plans proposed. And they have been re-licensing old plants that were not even designed for. Their licenses require a pmnt for the future storage or other remediation of this material. They have actually licensed a few new plants recently.

 

This is a large contributing factor in the ongoing Global Fukashima Disaster. It has the potential to eliminate our #1 personal resource: TIME !

[peanutbutter]

NRC issues notice of Cs 137 discovery.

 

[peanutbutter]

Forbes mag today:

 

Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?

 

 

When fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster began appearing last Spring in U.S. air, rainwater, drinking water, and milk, many U.S. media outlets ignored the story.

It was a difficult story to cover. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was releasing raw data erratically, sometimes late on Friday afternoons, and reporters either had to possess radiation expertise or take a crash course in picocuries, millisieverts, MCLs and DILs.

It was much easier for reporters to accept reassurances from government officials that the fallout drifting across the U.S. was “well below levels of public concern.” And it was much easier to heed pleas from government and industry that we not alarm the public.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/05/29/should-we-hide-low-dose-radiation-exposures-from-the-public/

[purklize]

Mass. Congressman Markey is a well-known opponent to nuclear anything. He raises concerns over the mere existence of nuclear power so he is sure to raise concern over this. I guess my point is that just because he is concerned doesn't necessarily mean a reasonable person has cause for alarm.

 

This statement suggests that those who are opposed to nuclear power are unreasonable...

 

Well when you get down to it, the use of nuclear power is a philosophical issue and there will always be extremists on either end. On the one hand you have what you quoted above, where Dems accuse the republicans of not using science in that regard. On the other hand you have the dems saying coal burning generators are bad because of global warming. You also have those that say rivers dams are bad. So I suppose we could shut down all forms of electrical power generation except wind turbines. But then I suppose those are going to kill the odd bluejay... We could just turn the US into one giant hippie commune and stop driving pollution belching cars too.

 

It's a philosophical debate in which I won't partake because there will never be an end nor a convincing of anyone on either side. It's a risk/reward analysis. Who here wants to stop using electricity? A good start would be turning off computers. I suppose, in the end, people will decide whether they feel safe enough to live near, or downwind from, nuclear power plants. Everyone else can put as much distance between nuclear power and themselves as humanly possible.

 

I don't see how it's a philosophical issue - it's entirely one of practicality. As I said earlier, nuclear power is not even economically viable so it is insane that anyone would suggest it is somehow more practical than cheaper sources of energy, such as wind... not one plant has ever been built with private dollars. Wind turbines don't have the potential to render the entire planet uninhabitable like would happen if our nuclear waste stockpiles were mismanaged anytime in the next million years.

 

We could begin replacing nuclear power entirely with benign renewable sources tomorrow. The idea that wind is a hippie pipe dream is itself a myth. It is cheaper, more practical, and without the hazards of nuclear power. The difference is, it doesn't make private investors rich, and it doesn't arm the military with the capacity to wipe out civilization in minutes. We can only imagine how disappointing this must be for them.

 

Taking a strong stance does not make someone an "extremist." This is a loaded term used to defuse any consideration given to alternative perspectives, ridiculing them not on the merits of any rational argument, but the simple fact that they challenge entrenched interests.

 

There was a time when those opposed to the use of lead and mercury in medicine were "extremists." There was a time when those who believed cigarettes and the sun caused cancer were "extremists." There was a time when those who believed marijuana should be legal were "extremists."

 

The use of the term "extremist" suggests nothing other than an unwillingness to consider fresh arguments, or the mistaken belief that there is no such thing as objective truth.

 

Obama actually vetoed their proposed Yucca Mtn idea, yet there has been no further announcements, studies or plans proposed.

 

Thank god for that. I have known a prominent geologist for many years who was summoned to evaluate that project. Of the 30 or 40 who were present, he was the only one to write a paper critical of the proposal (from what he's said, the entire thing was unviable and 100% doomed to failure at some point in the future). His was the only one not published.

 

The government loves nuclear power. It supplies their WMD stockpiles. Wonder why Iran is willing to risk war over the "peaceful atom"? Shouldn't be any surprise. Plus, the corporations that are handed the completed plants (the government foots the bill for construction) enjoy billions in profits at our expense (guess who pays for cleanup... we do), and use large chunks of them as "investments" in pro-nuclear research publications and politicians, receiving very high rates of return compared to traditional financial investments. These are entrenched interests who give zero consideration to our health or the survival of civilization. They are the same people who have killed millions overseas, and killed millions with toxic prescription drugs that could have been replaced with MMJ. Don't make the mistake of trusting them...

Edited August 14, 2012 by purklize

[CaveatLector]

This statement suggests that those who are opposed to nuclear power are unreasonable...

 

 

 

I don't see how it's a philosophical issue - it's entirely one of practicality. As I said earlier, nuclear power is not even economically viable so it is insane that anyone would suggest it is somehow more practical than cheaper sources of energy, such as wind... not one plant has ever been built with private dollars. Wind turbines don't have the potential to render the entire planet uninhabitable like would happen if our nuclear waste stockpiles were mismanaged anytime in the next million years.

 

 

 

Uh, no, it doesn't suggest that those opposed are unreasonable. The whole point is that reasonable minds can differ! You apparently are taking the position that reasonable people only think in one direction.

 

As for the economic viability of nuclear power, that is a subject of some debate. As is the economic viability of wind power. I'm not going to get into that debate but suffice it to say there is no conclusive "right" answer.

[purklize]

Investors have done all the research about economic viability. They don't build nuclear plants, but they do build wind plants. That, to me, is evidence enough.

[Dr. Bob]

Investors have done all the research about economic viability. They don't build nuclear plants, but they do build wind plants. That, to me, is evidence enough.

 

The regulatory process comes into play when evaluating the economic return on Nuke Plants.

 

If the gov pre-approved 4 designs for plants, follow it and it is approved, I think you would see a shift in investment. In all honesty, I would have quite a bit of trouble investing in a project that had to have every pipe, every vent, every bolt pre-approved and then deal with years of environmental impact studies, custom solutions to every conceivable problem or natural disaster, every snail darter nest, etc dealt with prior to breaking ground YEARS down the road.

 

Why deal with a politically charged, over regulated, micromanaged project when I can put up a wind turbine later this WEEK, start generating some cash flow, and have everyone look at me like an environmental hero? I think that sheds some light on the investment profile of nuclear power.

 

BTW, in rural villages in Alaska, the Native Corporations are looking at low yield Nuclear solutions to their energy needs because of distances, lack of transportation (fuel and milk were both $10 a gallon when I was out in the bush in a village with sea barge access- think what it was in places only accessible by air).

[purklize]

Darn regulations!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31QiQbTS7eE

[Dr. Bob]

That's not an explosion.... THIS is an explosion!

 

[imiubu]

HEY PB;

 

do we know each other ?

 

there are some who appearently believe we do.

 

http://www.michiganc....php?f=9&t=4155

 

Restorium wrote:

imiubu is really miffed at anyone who messed with peanutbutter. They have a business arrangement. ALL the negative posts are by proxy. Someone sticking up for their buddy who got kicked or their money interests. Ganja is for dispensaries and will attack anyone who is against them. All the new guys are Joe's people. They come in and make a question about Jackson Market and then here comes restless. It's all jockeying for position.

 

 

That makes a lot of sense. Is imiubu the oil guy from Saginaw? You know John R? I handed PB his tail over the sunspot stuff and it makes sense now as to why he is going after me. The rest I tend to agree with as well.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

 

Maybe imi is not the one who should check themselves.

Edited August 15, 2012 by imiubu

[imiubu]

thing is zap, they did it to me here for speaking out about how they

 

behave. They are allowed to continue in this vein.

 

Do you realize that no one will really know what they are up to

 

if it can't be brought out in the light.

 

I addressed you with this previously.

[peanutbutter]

HEY PB;

 

do we know each other ?

 

there are some who appearently believe we do.

 

http://www.michiganc....php?f=9&t=4155

 

Restorium wrote:

imiubu is really miffed at anyone who messed with peanutbutter. They have a business arrangement. ALL the negative posts are by proxy. Someone sticking up for their buddy who got kicked or their money interests. Ganja is for dispensaries and will attack anyone who is against them. All the new guys are Joe's people. They come in and make a question about Jackson Market and then here comes restless. It's all jockeying for position.

 

 

I have NO idea who you are!!

 

Very interesting!! Thank you for pointing out this high powered conspiracy to slander myself and my oil. They duck behind the curtains and figure out the best method to attack me. Could tell that was going on. I didn't think they would be stupid enough to leave it in plain public view.

 

Very interesting read.

 

Hey zap. Nice to know your only concern is covering the trail.

 

Dr Bob .. I'll fill you in about when I got uncomfortable with you. It was when you decided to have your fellow professionals, those that protect us under this act, punished if they didn't meet your standards.

 

I believe you have continued in this effort to have other doctors punished to this very day.

 

We don't need MORE laws to punish people for marijuana.

Edited August 15, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

I started this thread because I perceive a threat to the public health. A very grave threat.

 

My slander fans don't care about trivial things like that. They have a job to do. Discredit me at all costs. In this case, at the expense of our health.

 

So instead of trying to contribute to the idea of damage prevention, they clutter the thread, intentionally, so no one can receive benefit. No one is allowed to understand the nature of the threat against us.

 

It's interesting to see Dr. Bob involved in undermining public health.

Edited August 15, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Dr. Bob]

Yeah, the only reason I put up the charts and refuted your sunspot theory is to undermine the act and your oil.....

 

Actually, I do support many folks in this field, including fellow professionals. I also support basic standards of care and good practices, and quite frankly, the courts and my fellow professionals are supporting those standards. Because they are coming out, I am being contacted by primary care doctors interested in incorporating cannabis in their practices. It is a long process to change a professional mindset, and the regulation of those more interested in selling signatures than actually doing the eval required by the Act was a key part of it.

 

Yes I have some business and defamation actions going against some bad players in this field. I specifically have a defamation action against some folks that mounted a 'smear' campaign against me on the internet. When I filed it, he was all over the place using his status as a 'patient' to try and turn it into something that had to do with the community, and still is trying to play that card. But it simply is a defamation issue, nothing more.

 

As for you PB- I was pretty nice to you even though you had some rather strange ideas. I pretty much realized what you were when you started hawking your oil as a cure for cancer. The proof you offered was several pictures of the same lesion a few days apart, and everyone what chirping in about how much better they looked. They were no different, other than a crust was wiped off. I specifically asked for follow up photos and doctor reports when you asked me to put my thoughts up, you danced and wouldn't give me a follow up photo of the same spot much less the physician reports I needed to look for change in the lesions. We went round and round for weeks. You made the announcement, I asked for the evidence, you wouldn't produce it.

 

I am sure your oil is good for many things. Cannabis is good for many things. But frankly, you refusal to apply basic analytical reasoning before making proclamations (like people a Disney getting radiation poisoning- citing non-existent readings after you OBVIOUSLY misread a graph). Your reasoning seems to consist of coming up with something you believe and then running all over the net looking for anything that supports it while ignoring that which does not, your refusal to listen to those that actually know what they are talking about, really makes me concern about how much of your oil is marketing/hype and how much is actual results.

 

That is my analysis of the current situation. I stand behind it. Folks can take it for what they want.