• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
bystander effect
#21
(12-12-2017, 10:50 PM)Code Wrote: What is difficult is quantifying the Fukushima disaster.  Is it responsible for the Pacific ocean crash, or are all the press releases correct that it didnt harm a single thing?  I would add a subject heading to cafe radlab; 'how bad is it?'  Probably not as bad as the bomb test era....but maybe worse.  We cant be sure of the total release and its forms.

From the guesstimate of initial becquerels released; bomb testing was worse with Fuku not far behind.  I would argue that Fuku is worse since the dosage was released mostly to the lower atmosphere.  Bomb testing was higher in the atmosphere and would take some time to drift lower giving the short lived elements more time to decay.  Bomb testing was spread out over several years whereas Fuku was all at once.  The initial release numbers don't reflect the ongoing releases at Fuku.  80% of Fuku fell on the Pacific.  Not much research I found on plutonium, uranium, and the dirty daughter's effects on sea life but the effects of tritium were well studied. I would guess that aquatic species would bio-accumulate radionuclides causing cancers and immune system degradation in them and any eating the contaminated sea life but only if the aquatic species managed to survive the devastating effects of tritium.  

About half way down are studies of tritium's effects on aquatic species.
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/s...DOCNO+6467

Code, you can start a thread 'how bad is it'; you have the power here.  I think it was very bad and Fuku is responsible for the Pacific ocean crash.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#22
Kevin Blanch coined the term Pacific Genocide.  I notice that anti nuclearists dont know and dont really care to know how (or if) Fukushima caused the crash of the Pacific ecosystem.  On the other side, mainstream scientists outright deny that Fukushima caused any problem at all.     

Can anyone explain how or even if Fukushima caused the Pacific Genocide?
 
Reply
#23
Code,

"Can anyone explain how or even if Fukushima caused the Pacific Genocide?"

I recently posted a reply in your Caferadlab Pacific Genocide tread here.

http://caferadlab.com/thread-2163-post-4...ml#pid4582
CafeRadLab  Free Guides and Resources For Everyone Here!

Get Prepared For Earth Changes!

The purpose of life is to learn to express your personal energy Creatively and Lovingly!


 
Reply
#24
A world without lightning. 

Woods Hole and the nuke industry are constantly comparing radioactivity from fallout to background radiation.  This little post is part of an effort to show that the comparison is not valid.


Lightning is dangerous...would the world be better off without it? Would you like to live on a planet without lightning?

Another question; if you could magically remove all the radioactive potassium isotopes from your body (with no disruption to your potassium balance), would you do it...certain that you removed one more radioactive chance to get cancer?

Lightning is interesting because it shares some unique characteristics with your bodies potassium radiation;  both make beta and gamma rays and both make matter-antimatter annihilators! Both are ionizing. Both are natural to the living world.

http://www.sci-news.com/physics/lightnin...05460.html

Mankind is on a perpetual learning curve, yet always thinks he knows it all!  On a world without lightening, life may not even exist.  It was found that electric sparks make the building blocks of life out of raw primordial soup. This is one of the theories of the genesis of life....that primordial lightening around volcanoes gave birth to life on earth.  A related theory is that the radioactive potassium creates chirality, or the right vs left hand symmetry, of our living biomolecules. 

Theres more to lightning, and most likely more that we DONT know. For example, it creates the Schumann waves by resonating the earth-ionospheric cavity. Those frequencies happen to match brain waves and influence  evolution, biological clocks.  

Assuming natural radiation gives a linear, stochastic detriment to life, as constantly repeated by radiation 'specialists' is a little like assuming the nearly 20% oxygen in air is 1/5 as toxic as breathing 100% oxygen.  Or that lightning is nothing but a detriment

Very few studies were done to actually TEST the toxicity of radioactivity from potassium.  One test showed that animals had worse health without the radioactive component.  Another (done with e-coli) showed that even when the levels of radiation from potassium...the k-40 radionuclide, was increased by a factor of 100, there was no mutation.  Removing the radiation did not reduce mutations.  

This is in stark contrast to nuclear fallout like cesium, strontium and plutonium where the smallest dose creates metabolic changes, changes that are precursors to cancer and other diseases.  Microbeam experiments showed that even a single track across the cytoplasm of a cell was enough to induce bystander effects. 

I would not risk removing the natural radiation from my body, or the lightning rolling across the plains. 

Another way of saying it might be...dont mess with mother nature, because you might just be a little stupid
 
Reply
#25
What is the dose coefficient (sieverts per becquerel) for Cesium137? What is it for K-40? The ICRP assumes they are nearly the same. But I could not find any tests proving the assumption. They vary, but a typical chart of radiation exposure is something like this
http://www.passmyexams.co.uk/GCSE/physic...-chart.gif

However, since the toxicity is not known (science says they cant determine toxicity for low levels because of the huge number of subjects required for statistical significance), the charts are just assumptions.

Im going to show they are off by a huge amount
 
Reply
#26
someone suggested nuclear fallout is frying people, that cancer was a burning.  My response;

...cancer as a burning from fallout. In a way thats correct because free radical damage may be one of the major causes of cancer from low level fallout. This could mainly be due to radical oxygen signaling. The energy is very small…a fatal dose from fallout has the energy of one sip of coffee.  Nuclear fallout cant be envisioned as either high energy or large quantity. The number of atoms in a toxic dose is very small. The quantity of material from fallout in the environment is small. Its just very toxic, on a molecular and ecosystem scale.

Visualizing the steps to cancer. DNA is of course the double strand helix, the sequences that code for proteins are called genes and this is all wound into complex strands called chromosomes… like a rope. DNA replication has a lot to do with cell signalling and machinery like enzymatic replisomes, little trolleys that ride along the DNA, making copies, and chaparones, other little machines that fold the new amino acid sequences…proteins, and protect them from recombinations.  Defects in any of these processes can lead to cancer or other diseases...like a little defect in a printer can ruin a whole book.

The power of the information signal, as opposed to direct 'burning' or DNA strand breaks is shown in studies of low level radiation; fifty times as many cells that arent even hit by radiation can become altered or even killed by the information sent out by the one cell that was hit.  Cells traversed by radiation that didnt hit DNA cause more genetic damage than direct hits to DNA

When a cell is about to divide, the chromosomes bundle up into tight units. They look like this http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modul...meSetm.jpg
Cancer has a common feature;  these large bundles of DNA have gross changes called aneuploidy. This is in contrast to specific DNA double strand breaks. Its an evolution. The chromosomes finally evolve into a nearly separate species sharing some characteristics of prokaryotic single cell organisms…the bacteria. Cancer is energetic, immortal, gets energy from sugar fermentation in the cytoplasm, commandeers your body to make blood vessels to feed it. 

Cancer is thus an evolution caused by continual stressors, metabolic changes and information signaling. Nuclear fallout causes these metabolic changes, in contrast to natural radiation from k-40. It is this causative, rather than stochastic aspect of low level radiation that allows us to protect ourselves from fallout, at least to some degree, with phytochemicals minerals and vitamins. Not that it will matter if the whole ecosystem crashes….

How aneuploidy may cause cancer and genetic instability.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10697602
 
Reply
#27
The endocrine system is a chemical messenger system at a cellular level, hormones for body organs.

"A hormone is a class of signaling molecules produced by glands in multicellular organisms that are transported by the circulatory system to target distant organs to regulate physiology and behaviour." "The nervous and endocrine systems often act together in a process called neuroendocrine integration, to regulate the physiological processes of the human body." "The body only needs very little iodine but it must get the amount it needs. Iodine is central to the functioning of the thyroid gland and the production of its hormones."  

You determined that ionizing radiation breaks down cell communications. Iodine plays an important role in facilitating cellular communications.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#28
The bystander effect crosses over to animals not irradiated.  Its mysterious.  Life is an interconnected web. 

A group of fish, group A, was introduced to a separate group of fish, group B to intermingle for two hours.  Then group A was irradiated.  The non irradiated group B showed bystander effects.  How is that possible?

Biological Entanglement-Like Effect After Communication of Fish Prior to X-Ray Exposure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5818098/
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)