• 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
And, I really don't care when people like Jay try to cast me in a bad light. It only makes him look petty for choosing insults. I've done twitter debates with Rod Adams, Conca the Shill (who ducked out & dumped some Nuke PR hack on me), a nuclear pusher who insisted that civilian nuke plants weren't producing materials for weapons and I put them all to shame. They were not correct and I showed that to be true. So...
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#22
Yes, you did put them to shame. And the fact that you were blocked showed that. (Our double-teaming might have pushed him over the edge...)

But this is the point - it's quite simple to puncture their lies with even basic intuitive truths.

Pia has the background knowledge, for certain. She knows far more about the details than most people do. But even people who simply know the difference between a true/logical statement and a falsehood could nullify these guys.

You can heap all the data and "superiour intelligence" and PhDs and grand scientific pronouncements you want on people. The truth cuts through it all. What we intuitively know and then express in the face of these lies cuts through it all.

We can't forget that, and we can't be promoting the idea that laypeople don't have what it takes to take these guys on. That's exactly WHAT it takes - laypeople taking this on, educating themselves, speaking up, exposing and discrediting the people spreading falsehoods.

We're arming ourselves and others with information that can cut the crap on this subject and expose the web of silence and lies. And that's what the Tweet Storm was about. Circulating the information people need to put 2 and 2 together themselves. Because the official bodies, including those establishment scientists, certainly aren't going to do it for us.
 
Reply
#23
'There is also NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that low-level radiation is harmless'

True Willow, in fact I think some low level radiation may be good for you. It all depends on the source.

 But knowing there is no safe dose, would you rather eat a fish with 1 Bq/kg  or a fish with 70 Bq/kg?

I saw Jay Cullen posted a photo of a fish he was about to eat. We are both certain there is more radiation from potassium than cesium in that fish.  I would guestimate there is 0.6 becquerels per kilo of cesium. (bioconcentration of 60x 10 bq/m3 ocean water) while the natural radiation in the tissue is 70 bq/kg

How is it possible that the deadly, no-safe- dose radiation is in fact safe at 70 Bq/kg  while another dose from a different source is not safe at 10 Bq/kg?   In this case, its not about chemical toxicity, its not about internal vs external, its not about chronic dose, and has very little to do with bioaccumulation (in the normal sense).   A related question is how is it possible that all of the sick and dying sea life,  an ecosystem wide catastrophe, could come from radiation that is so much lower than how radioactive the animals are naturally?

Well I can tell you with certainty that the answer is not totally known! Science has not yet figured out why one source of radiation is harmless and another deadly at the same quantitative dose (both internal). 

 Intuition is great, and it may help.  Scientists should use it more often. Yet...how productive is it to argue out there in the wilds of cyber communications that 'my intuition tells me some radiation, even 5000x larger than other radiation is harmless'.    

Fortunately we have some epidemiology.  And thats an amazing thing about these ...can I say it...smug-ass scientists, is that they ignore the devastation going on in front of their eyes as if all is well.  Not totally well, since 0.8 deg assumed water temperature increase is assumed to cause all problems.  Talk about a presumptive, narrow, non scientific attitude!

The catastrophic impact of Fukushima is caused by the specific radionuclides and their forms, not the measurable radiation quantity.  Its quality not quantity.  This is seen on the microbiological level.  It may also be the sequence of events. Has anyone studied how toxic cesium is after you just had 10x the dose of radioactive iodine? Science assumes the iodine is no longer a problem and that the xenon had no impact.  

The sea ecosystem is so complex! add to this the insane complexity of biology (mother nature, what were you thinking?). It will be a long time before science has this figured out.  As ENEnews poster Jebus would say, its the sum of all influences.  The radiological impact of the bomb test era is still working its way through the ecosystem, as is Chernobyl and all nuclear activity. As long as scientists focus on radiation quantity (as they study for example settling and re-suspension of radiation),  they will miss the truth.  Its about the systemic, ecology wide disturbance caused by (quantitatively minute), radiation sources never experienced by life on earth coupled with a thousand other toxins and mass killings by humans. 

Specific activity (radiation intensity per mass) probably has a lot to do with it, which is a primary distinction between background radiation and fallout.  This is true on a particle level as well, with nano hot particles wafting around the earth.  This may be true ecobiologically (for lack of better term),  as for example it hasnt been studied (to my knowledge) how the increased radioactive intensity of fungi which have high levels of bioaccumulation  impact toxicity.  Fungi are ubiquitous and could play a roll in the microbiological etiology of fallout caused morbidity.


The ocean is an intensely equilibrating balance of microorgansims with 10 million viruses in every drop of water. 

'The majority of these viruses infect microbes, including bacteria, archaea, and microeukaryotes, all of which are vital players in the global fixation and cycling of key elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.'  

Little viruses infect big viruses and these infect the 10 billion microbes living in one liter of water. This goes around and even impacts the weather through cloud nucleating aerosols. Are there studies of nuclear fallout impacts on the viral/microbiotic and higher level ecosystems?  Toxicity on these levels may be more about information transfer than chemical or radioactive action.

In the thread on pacific genocide, I mentioned the bystander effect  can cross entire animals and even species.  One animal exposed to radiation has some level of impact on animals not exposed.  One theory is that bits of micro RNA are responsible for this.  There is a fascinating interaction between viruses and these micro RNA messenger particles, disease and the radiological bystander effect.

viruses interact with animal rna and vice versa, the actions playing out on a grand, ocean wide, planet wide scale which I think of as a kind of information network, inasmuch as these are like encoded microchips.

'As masters of genome-wide regulation, miRNAs represent a key component in the complex architecture of cellular processes. Over the last decade, it has become increasingly apparent that miRNAs have many important roles in the development of disease and cancer. MicroRNAs (miRNAs), which are small non-coding RNAs expressed by almost all metazoans, have key roles in the regulation of cell differentiation, organism development and gene expression. Thousands of miRNAs regulating approximately 60 % of the total human genome have been identified. Viruses themselves express miRNAs that can target either the host or viral mRNA transcriptome. Moreover, viral infection of cells causes a drastic change in host miRNAs.'

Indeed I think this kind of ecosystem wide interaction may be understood somewhat intuitively...or not, but the scientific details have not been worked out. Scientists are trained NOT to entertain intuition or bias, even though they are full of bias.

Hopefully the younger nuclear biology scientists will explore these interconnections as related to fallout specifically. Is it too late? Mans impact on earth has reportedly killed off 40 to 90% of animal life, 20 to 40% of plankton, nearly half the trees.  Mans population and resource exploitation is enormous, while his humility and empathy is nearly non existent.  I dont see much hope. maybe thats a good thing
 
Reply
#24
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
#25
Willow, well Im glad your intuition has it all figured out.   

Not all people put that trust in intuition. In fact intuition can often be misleading.  When dealing with todays world, one can appeal to the intuitive grasp....as I did with the k-40 issue, yet you need some kind of scientific or logical backup. Especially when dealing with scientists and the media....who control the narrative.   

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.

You say " 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. "    and if this is in response to my statement;

"How is it possible that the deadly, no-safe- dose radiation is in fact safe at 70 Bq/kg  while another dose from a different source is not safe at 10 Bq/kg?   In this case, its not about chemical toxicity, its not about internal vs external, its not about chronic dose, and has very little to do with bioaccumulation (in the normal sense). "

Then I want to clarify.  The natural radiation of your body is a chronic dose.  It doesnt BECOME dangerous because its chronic, it remains not harmful.  I dont think its fully understood why this is the case.  So we were looking for reasons why one source of radiation is harmful and one is not, and the chronic nature is not one of those reasons then.  It is of course a factor in why the fallout becomes more dangerous the longer its in your body,...a different point.

Its also not about bioaccumulation, because the question revolves around a given level of cesium in your tissues vs a given level that is there naturally.  This would of course be after you have accumulated it there in the case of fallout. Again, accumulation makes fallout more dangerous but thats not the question. Nor is the man made chemical nature of cesium likely to be a major determinant in this case.   

On the one hand, its great to have the fervent, undaunted belief in ones position.  There is power in that, and perhaps even a pathway toward greater understanding and command of the subject.


On the other hand, that undaunted certainty looks a lot like the hubris of the scientists you disparage.  Then if its backed up with only a few facts and lot of intuition, it could backfire, especially when confronting a scientist. Who knows, maybe you will find yourself on a radio program or a conference, and take the mic.   How is it different for you to lay out your position as obvious fact, than it is for a scientist who has studied it for the last several decades to lay out his position?  Your only defense is that they are somehow beholden to financiers or that they lack intuition.  You will certainly turn them off and be considered an uninformed alarmist...part of the public problem in their minds.  

Im suggesting that humility will be to your advantage.  You might like to consider the Socratic method of argument; "Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Thanks for reading, and considering my view, and thanks as well for your efforts to stimulate the public

Willow said "The "establishment scientists" are the ones who don't have a clue about the real horrors and dangers of uranium...or if they do, they are lying about it. And this is the same perspective you think we have to come from to "beat them at their own game"? No. The opposite, I would say. "

Consider that Busby et al in fact DID beat established science using tools of science.  In this case epidemiology.  You could have an intuition that relatively non radioactive depleted uranium was causing great radiological harm, but without some data to back it up, neither the scientists nor the public will listen.  Busby backed it up with a theory of action.  The uranium acts to "weaponize" background radiation by the photoelectron effect, and its attachment to DNA.

On the other hand, if you are attempting to influence the emotions and beliefs of the non scientific public, then it may be better to use very simple, emotionally charged sentiments.   Tell them depleted uranium weapons dust is killing and deforming babies....which it is, and forget about explaining why mainstream science is in the dark about it.   But saying scientists just dont know....as a stand alone comment....I dont see that as working out very well....    perhaps better to say that its an area that they havent studies and specialists have overturned the old dogma.   For my taste
 
Reply
#26
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
#27
Willow point well taken;

"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"

In fact I did read your article you linked to at ENEnews and found it good.

Not every opinion needs to be solicited.  Not every opinion not in keeping with yours is wrong.

You appear to have missed my point;
"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. "

I wasnt talking about natural radiation, I was comparing the two, attempting to give some hints about why they are different, and why the standard anti nuke answer of bioaccumulation, chronic exposure or heavy metals are not sufficient to explain it.  But thanks for reading.  
 
Reply
#28
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
#29
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
#30
Horse said "That they ignore the difference between different electromagnetic frequencies is not science but politics."

The scientists are taught that when you go into the ionizing part of the EM spectrum, the energy is high enough to rip electrons off atoms.  This is the main point they carry with them, so they categorize the ionizing spectrum that way.  They know of course that gamma, alpha and beta are different ways this ionizing radiation is generated, with the vastly different penetration depths and so on. Yet this only means a 20x difference in effect in their minds.  They cant accept,...rather it doesnt even occur to them, that 70 bq/kg of radiation can be totally non toxic and the exact same dose can be deadly deadly.  This is the way their minds and the dosimetry have established the architecture of belief.

But in fact newer science is replacing the old dogma.  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.  But areas that ARE new include the action of radiation both at the DNA but more importantly at the metabolic level.  Also some qualitative differences of different radionuclides.  The radioactive cause and etiology of cancer is making new ground. Information transfer and metabolic shifts are starting to be in the spotlight, at least among the few.  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. 

Make no mistake about it; the health physics people think they know and the anti nuclearists think they know and neither of them do. 

The new revelations of science are all very important because its quite true that the standard views and arguments of the anti nuke community are not convincing. 

 I feel that we have run out of time on the larger scale of global problems though.  Intelligence is decreasing, brains are smaller, mental retardation is climbing exponentially.  Business Man has not changed his outlook and philosophy.  Entire ecosystems are crashing.  In my life, half the animals on earth have died out. One more lifetime at this same vector and earth will be sterile, unable to support man and his incredible numbers.  We wont be able to take care of the infrastructure, including the nuclear waste.  Catastrophe will ensue.  Its nearly a certainty.   The president, whether one likes him or not, is a veritable icon of what is NOT needed. He is the antithesis of where we need to go as a species, and yet represents the attitudes and disposition of the public to a large extent.  

This isnt about politics, its about mass psychology and the wave, the momentum of civilization.

Willow, what we need is open mindedness. We need it from scientists, policy makers, the public and our friends in the anti nuke community. We are just learning.  I share my findings to the community because it helps.  rather, it ought to help, if they are open minded about it.   I had more resistance at ENEnews than support.   It was a strange experience...
 
Reply
#31
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
#32
Horse and all....perhaps another thread, 'aspects of fallout toxicity' or something

I would wish to keep the caferadlab threads clean.   Im challenged to reduce my words and get to the point...

the ultimate would be such high caliber that professionals would contribute
 
Reply
#33
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)