• 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
Fukushima Tweet Storm August 11, 2018
#21
Yes, of course it has something to do with the combinations of specific man-made isotopes involved. That's why I said, "There is no safe level of man-made radioactivity/isotopes to ingest on a continual basis." But that, again, would be intuitive. All people have to do is think about it, and they will come to that conclusion.

We would not naturally be coming into contact with those combinations of man-made isotopes, nor would they be in those continual doses that are then being taken internally. It's all connected. I disagree that chronic doses + bio-accumulation in the body of MAN-MADE radioactive isotopes in combination are not key elements of the problem here.

There's a big difference between man-made and natural. Again...intuitively understood by people who have not allowed themselves to be severed from their own intuition or soul-level understanding of things.

I would argue that the lack of intuition in science is what has gotten us into this sickening, soulless mess we call "official establishment science."

And it's this "scientific" bias that is troubling to me with some of the ENEnews commenters, as well.

You want to believe none of this is happening just because establishment science (often with ties to pro-nuke agencies) is telling you that? Because they are providing the usual platitudes about a subject they simply do not understand, do not know, and cannot accurately make pronouncements about? You want to trust that these arrogant a-holes have it all figured out on Planet Earth?

I sure don't.

The current scientific paradigm is as sick as the Pacific Ocean at this time, if not sicker.

 
Reply
#22
Again, you are talking about natural radiation sources. I'm talking about combinations of man-made radioactive isotopes that our bodies would not come into contact with naturally. This is what Fukushima fallout is.

So yes, internal radiation and chronic doses of the combinations of man-made radioactive isotopes our bodies would not naturally come into contact with are a problem.

Whether "science" can explain that or not is not really of concern to me. The current scientific paradigm is incredibly limited and most often short-sighted, yet it's often held up as a paragon of truth and reality.

I would certainly trust a person whose honed intuition and bullshit-detecting I respect over an establishment scientist telling me Fukushima fallout is harmless, you bet I would.

I didn't need the snarky comments about intuition, and I'll give your lessons on humility a pass, too. (Giving those lessons unsolicited is certainly not a sign of the aforementioned humility, by the way.)

I will certainly stand behind my statements about the glaring faults and soul-sickness of establishment science, the misplaced trust in which has gotten us into the situation we are in today.

I would also ask you to reserve comment about how many facts my intuition is backed up with since you don't know me or my work.
 
Reply
#23
That's your opinion.

I think bioaccumulation, chronic exposure, and heavy metals toxicity ARE all elements of the problem. Maybe they're not the ENTIRE problem, but they're certainly elements of it.

Really, the overall point is: we don't have to explain all that. We know it. We see it in action in the Pacific Ocean. We see it in action in the USS Ronald Reagan soldiers. We see it in the infant death and thyroid cancer spikes.

We know it's something to be deeply concerned about because we feel it. We sense it. We know it in our bones.

And yes, that is valid, whether you and the scientific paradigm believe so or not.

If people are waiting around for science to explain why the Titanic is sinking, we're all going to the bottom of the sea.
 
Reply
#24
Code says - Scientists will argue...there is no difference in an electromagnetic frequency, whether its man made or naturally generated. You have to be able to explain what that difference is. The public will want to know.

But science does know there is differences in the interaction or effects of different electromagnetic frequencies. In addition, certain frequencies can act as signal carriers where frequencies higher or lower may not carry a certain signal. This may be key to understanding the qualitative difference between natural and man-made radionuclides. That they ignore the difference between different electromagnetic frequencies is not science but politics.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#25
Code - "I have found one paper that correlates frequency bands and their octaves to health effects.  That is still not a part of nuclear health science."

Yes, I know that different frequencies of RF and ionizing radiation could affect health on an intuitive level which leads me to look for the science behind it so I can understand how that is and convince others that's how it works.  Probably my training and work in electronics.  It's not just nuclear health science that is coming to grips with the electromagnetic nature of reality, physicists  and astrophysicists struggle to come up with words to explain electromagnetic effects in phenomena they observe.  Your research of establishment science has led to your observation that cancer is caused by a breakdown in intracellular communications.  I know of the chemical messaging and there are hints of electrical communications between cells like ionic messaging.  

A radio works by putting information, a signal frequency, onto a carrier frequency that travels longer distances.  Component changes can disrupt the signal or carrier frequencies and the radio goes out of tune and quits working.  I visualize radiation changing or damaging the components of our bodies that leads to failure of the bodies communication system.  Radioactive components are used in some electronic circuits to amplify current that non-radioactive components simply can't do without breaking down.  

Code - "Cellular biology is taking off into quantum effects. Electromagnetic aspects of biology have been studied for years but only rarely getting a foothold into mainstream.  These could be important factors in unraveling the radiation toxicity conundrum."

Thank you for that opening to the quantum level; let's me toss in some research that may or may not be related but that I find interesting.  Perhaps radiation affects the geometry of our cells; different elements have different sized atoms.  At the least, Dr. Huth's work shows the difficulty new science has in changing old paradigms.

A Modern Explanation for Light Interaction with the Retina of the Eye Based on Nanostructural Geometry: Rethinking the Vision Process
http://www.ghuth.com/
Quote:A bit poetically…..I believe that the retina of the eye should be visualized, as “a logically spaced array of the wave-to-particle transition sites shown to exist in this work moving through a sea of electromagnetic energy and geometrically extracting three specific wavelengths from that sea to form what we perceive as the visual image and the sensation of the hues of color…”

Finally, to your last comment, I think it has to do with the psychology of the psychopaths that we allow to rule over us.  With their greedy little hands they take everything they can from the Universe and they give back nothing; leaving destruction in their wake.  We need to learn to recognize them before they do so much damage and choose saner leadership.  There is a wave coming that will wash over us and either destroy us or we will learn enough to ride the wave to a better future.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#26
I have spoken with a few experts about contributing here and what I have found is that they are typically busy with their work and are not inclined to regularly contribute at public social media forums. If you can attract thoughtful nuclear physicists, medical practitioners, and researchers well versed in the effects of man-made nuclear radiation on life, especially animals, including humans, that'd be swell.

I see you have started a thread for such dialog in Biological Impacts http://caferadlab.com/thread-2610-post-5...ml#pid5769
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)