Nuclear Scare Scam | Galen Winsor
- Thread starter trendsetter37
- Start date
Richs
The Cosmic Force
Re: Nuclear Scare: Is it a scam?
I just finished the video and was planning to do an extensive deconstruction of all his statements, but BHelmet has already covered most of the important stuff already. But to add to what he has already analyzed, there are several things which came to me about his speechifying.
He did not provide any actual data or reference any data that one could use to verify anything he said. He did not even provide any hypothesis as to why radiation is totally harmless and how and why living tissue of any sort renders such ionizing radiation harmless when countless scientific work has demonstrated it is extremely harmful as the level of radiation rises.
The last week's show from James McCanney, whom many here are familiar with (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/) had as the main topic of the show that the most serious problem we all face at this time is radiation. He stressed that especially in the US, but also worldwide, there are many, many old reactors which are operating beyond their projected lifetime date, and which could fail at any time. Even the newer ones are an extreme hazard considering the near certainty of upcoming major earthquakes and tsunamis. So also do say many scientists who really are recognized in the field and understand the actual risks we all face.
All of us here know that there are actually more problems than 'just' radiation, but McCanney was stressing the point that it is a major problem.
There a lots of other things I could bring up, but the bottom line is if you believe what this guy is spouting, I have a bridge I would like to sell for a very low price!
I just finished the video and was planning to do an extensive deconstruction of all his statements, but BHelmet has already covered most of the important stuff already. But to add to what he has already analyzed, there are several things which came to me about his speechifying.
He did not provide any actual data or reference any data that one could use to verify anything he said. He did not even provide any hypothesis as to why radiation is totally harmless and how and why living tissue of any sort renders such ionizing radiation harmless when countless scientific work has demonstrated it is extremely harmful as the level of radiation rises.
The last week's show from James McCanney, whom many here are familiar with (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/) had as the main topic of the show that the most serious problem we all face at this time is radiation. He stressed that especially in the US, but also worldwide, there are many, many old reactors which are operating beyond their projected lifetime date, and which could fail at any time. Even the newer ones are an extreme hazard considering the near certainty of upcoming major earthquakes and tsunamis. So also do say many scientists who really are recognized in the field and understand the actual risks we all face.
All of us here know that there are actually more problems than 'just' radiation, but McCanney was stressing the point that it is a major problem.
There a lots of other things I could bring up, but the bottom line is if you believe what this guy is spouting, I have a bridge I would like to sell for a very low price!
Richs
The Cosmic Force
Re: Nuclear Scare: Is it a scam?
Yes, it is alpha particles, sometimes called alpha radiation, which can cause serious damage. While it is considered the 'weakest' of radiations emitted by radioactive material and only can travel a very short distance in matter before it is absorbed, this does not mean it is not very dangerous.
Nuclear reactors create a few hundred elements and their isotopes. Many of these are utilized by bacterias, yeasts, algae, etc. and small to large animals of every type. The materials are incorporated into the very cells of these living beings of all sorts.
If a nuclear material which emits alpha gets onto your skin it can be washed off and any minor damage it has caused is usually insignificant to one's health. However, when it is absorbed with food or water, it gets absorbed into your cells as stated above, and this is when it becomes dangerous to your health. Even though these alpha particles can only travel a very short distance, they are now inside your cells and remain there for a fairly long time. And, if you have a real lot of them they are going to mutate or kill lots of cells.
As an analogy, it is similar to trying to take out a battle tank by throwing a hand grenade at it. Not going to do any damage at all, but if you throw one down the hatch, 'goodby tank crew'!
So, if you are in a contaminated area, it would be very difficult even to keep it off your skin or to avoid ingesting it in some way. There would also be the many other radiations from other materials to guard against. Not a very pleasant thought.
Forrestdeva said:
Yes, it is alpha particles, sometimes called alpha radiation, which can cause serious damage. While it is considered the 'weakest' of radiations emitted by radioactive material and only can travel a very short distance in matter before it is absorbed, this does not mean it is not very dangerous.
Nuclear reactors create a few hundred elements and their isotopes. Many of these are utilized by bacterias, yeasts, algae, etc. and small to large animals of every type. The materials are incorporated into the very cells of these living beings of all sorts.
If a nuclear material which emits alpha gets onto your skin it can be washed off and any minor damage it has caused is usually insignificant to one's health. However, when it is absorbed with food or water, it gets absorbed into your cells as stated above, and this is when it becomes dangerous to your health. Even though these alpha particles can only travel a very short distance, they are now inside your cells and remain there for a fairly long time. And, if you have a real lot of them they are going to mutate or kill lots of cells.
As an analogy, it is similar to trying to take out a battle tank by throwing a hand grenade at it. Not going to do any damage at all, but if you throw one down the hatch, 'goodby tank crew'!
So, if you are in a contaminated area, it would be very difficult even to keep it off your skin or to avoid ingesting it in some way. There would also be the many other radiations from other materials to guard against. Not a very pleasant thought.
Al Today
The Living Force
Re: Nuclear Scare: Is it a scam?
I cannot help but think of a COUPLE original tv Star Trek shows them coming into contact with some "old" earth... all our pollution and radiation back in the past... Yep, I remember watching them on tv.
Whatever... Anybody see the terror of our situation. The Universe placed me where I am for some reason. And I trust The Universe. Ain't done me wrong yet. Wouldn't be where I am now without It...
Like my momma says: Deal with It. Guaranteed, we're all gonna die.
I cannot help but think of a COUPLE original tv Star Trek shows them coming into contact with some "old" earth... all our pollution and radiation back in the past... Yep, I remember watching them on tv.
Whatever... Anybody see the terror of our situation. The Universe placed me where I am for some reason. And I trust The Universe. Ain't done me wrong yet. Wouldn't be where I am now without It...
Like my momma says: Deal with It. Guaranteed, we're all gonna die.
Re: Nuclear Scare: Is it a scam?
A little off topic, but I remember years ago stumbling on a page where "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer", Anders Björkman, presents "evidence" on how the whole nuclear weapon thing is a hoax. This is most probably a red herring, and a silly one, but reading his stuff you do start to have thoughts of "What if...?" Now, if what he says would be true, that would be the hoax of the millennium!
Link: _http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm
There's a lot more on those pages, but I'm not sure if they're worth reading...or, what if they are? :D
A little off topic, but I remember years ago stumbling on a page where "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer", Anders Björkman, presents "evidence" on how the whole nuclear weapon thing is a hoax. This is most probably a red herring, and a silly one, but reading his stuff you do start to have thoughts of "What if...?" Now, if what he says would be true, that would be the hoax of the millennium!
Link: _http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm
There's a lot more on those pages, but I'm not sure if they're worth reading...or, what if they are? :D
Re: Nuclear Scare: Is it a scam?
Unfortunately this individual is misunderstanding and distorting some basic facts. There is no compression in the process. All that happens (very very very schematically) is that some nuclei, when they encounter a neutron, they split into different elements, which have velocity (energy), and new neutrons. Now if there are just a few other atoms around, this resulting neutron will have little chance to encounter another nucleus and to cause another fission. Let's imagine someone in a 10mx10m room with three other people. If he throws a ball in a random direction, he has little chance to hit one of them. However, if he is in a bigger space of 1000mx1000m, with 30000 people, there is a higher chance for his ball to hit someone, and then that someone has a higher chance as well to hit "randomly" someone else in the crowd, etc. In fact, one fission produces more than one neutron, so if these neutrons are not lost to the outside of the material, a chain fission occurs, and the release of energy in the material increases extremely fast (motion of particles = heat = energy).
Aragorn said:
Unfortunately this individual is misunderstanding and distorting some basic facts. There is no compression in the process. All that happens (very very very schematically) is that some nuclei, when they encounter a neutron, they split into different elements, which have velocity (energy), and new neutrons. Now if there are just a few other atoms around, this resulting neutron will have little chance to encounter another nucleus and to cause another fission. Let's imagine someone in a 10mx10m room with three other people. If he throws a ball in a random direction, he has little chance to hit one of them. However, if he is in a bigger space of 1000mx1000m, with 30000 people, there is a higher chance for his ball to hit someone, and then that someone has a higher chance as well to hit "randomly" someone else in the crowd, etc. In fact, one fission produces more than one neutron, so if these neutrons are not lost to the outside of the material, a chain fission occurs, and the release of energy in the material increases extremely fast (motion of particles = heat = energy).
Re: Nuclear Scare: Is it a scam?
I'm not quite ready, based on this, to add Ann Coulter to my side when she said "Radiation Is Good For You", even though she is lining up O'Reilly with her comments, who is not good for you.
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI
There are some isotopes, such as Radium, when super heated in natural spring water that are alleged to have beneficial properties, and others likely too. Then there was the Radium girls of New Jersey who were injured by US Radium (some who had Radium jaw's), and the list goes on. I guess it is important to look at the contrasts of each particulate and understand their singularity properties and their mixed properties and doses and as said, the method of contact either external or internal.
I'm not quite ready, based on this, to add Ann Coulter to my side when she said "Radiation Is Good For You", even though she is lining up O'Reilly with her comments, who is not good for you.
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI
There are some isotopes, such as Radium, when super heated in natural spring water that are alleged to have beneficial properties, and others likely too. Then there was the Radium girls of New Jersey who were injured by US Radium (some who had Radium jaw's), and the list goes on. I guess it is important to look at the contrasts of each particulate and understand their singularity properties and their mixed properties and doses and as said, the method of contact either external or internal.
trendsetter37
The Living Force
Re: Nuclear Scare: Is it a scam?
Interesting, I remember coming across this topic a few years ago (link). Can't quite recall all of the details other than thinking that radiation may not be the boogeyman it was/is purported to be.
It's been awhile since I've watched Winsor's lectures in full, but based on what you've quoted there it sounds like he was saying that the amount of radiation "determined" to be the hard limit could have easily been surpassed after being subjected to a camera flash. They are already receiving a certain amount of exposure working around the plant which is supposedly accounted for. But what may not be taken into account is exposure from other sources unrelated to the nuclear plant that could still push their dosimeter over the limit. I didn't think he was talking about sunlight alone.
And actually if the sun can be seen as a giant electric arc or discharge we can expect it to be a natural source of gamma radiation. If you've ever enjoyed a lightening storm with numerous electric arcs you most likely also enjoyed a gamma radiation show. Yet another source of ionizing radiation.
My point here is that gamma ray radiation is more ubiquitous than was once believed by the majority of the populous and is associated with high discharge electrical arcs. A camera flash is also a high tension electrical arc. So maybe there is some validity to his claim there. We cannot really say he is wrong because our environment is devoid of gamma radiation. Also keep in mind that when limits to substances are declared and promulgated it is usually based on an estimation predicated by current known sources of exposure of that time. So the published limits can sometimes be arbitrarily based on what the expected dose should be.
Overall I thought the point he was trying to make is that the limits are extremely low and unwarranted for the sole purpose of inciting enough fear to dissuade others in possibly discovering some unknown beneficial aspect of nuclear materials.
Can't really argue for or against your NLP stance (still need to re-watch the vid) , but I do think we should pause before quoting anything from a government-sponsored study. There are reams of government sponsored studies that "prove" theories known to be patently false here on the forum. Smoking, high fat diets, and Iodine supplementation come to mind here.
Why are alpha particles so dangerous? They are Helium atoms, which falls in the same group of atomic elements that are deemed the most stable forms of matter on the periodic table. Radiation in general seems to be nature's balancing act to produce stable matter from something that is unstable. Kind of like a rebirth. Take for instance the thriving wildlife after Chernobyl event.
As T.C. posted I tend to agree that all matter is radioactive but with varying degrees. Everything is on a spectrum which is a cycle. It begins with the lighter, less dense elements or matter and then moves to the more dense atoms until they reach a certain point and begin to radiate matter in the form of energy or materials of lesser density (speaking in atomic terms).
I think the real issue here is dosage. Sure, if you are directly adjacent to a nuclear blast then you will most likely visit 5th Density sooner rather than later. However, I do not think the situation is so black and white as to claim all radiation is bad. To the contrary, low level radiation and associated materials may be very beneficial. It's not that far of a stretch to ponder the possibility that the government may be using fear to obfuscate some kind of benefit from nuclear materials. Not that I came to these conclusions from Winsor alone but the reading done afterwards relating to the topic.
Radiation spas in Europe and Japan.
__http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81664&page=1
There are other quirky articles like this floating around the net that report on the benefits of these so called radiation spas which may serve as anecdotal evidence for radiation hormesis mentioned in LQB's post. There seems to be just enough contrary views relating to the health aspects of nuclear radiation without even delving into any kind of energy implications. So I am a bit curious about all of this to be honest.
Interesting, I remember coming across this topic a few years ago (link). Can't quite recall all of the details other than thinking that radiation may not be the boogeyman it was/is purported to be.
BHelmet said:
It's been awhile since I've watched Winsor's lectures in full, but based on what you've quoted there it sounds like he was saying that the amount of radiation "determined" to be the hard limit could have easily been surpassed after being subjected to a camera flash. They are already receiving a certain amount of exposure working around the plant which is supposedly accounted for. But what may not be taken into account is exposure from other sources unrelated to the nuclear plant that could still push their dosimeter over the limit. I didn't think he was talking about sunlight alone.
And actually if the sun can be seen as a giant electric arc or discharge we can expect it to be a natural source of gamma radiation. If you've ever enjoyed a lightening storm with numerous electric arcs you most likely also enjoyed a gamma radiation show. Yet another source of ionizing radiation.
nasa.gov said:
My point here is that gamma ray radiation is more ubiquitous than was once believed by the majority of the populous and is associated with high discharge electrical arcs. A camera flash is also a high tension electrical arc. So maybe there is some validity to his claim there. We cannot really say he is wrong because our environment is devoid of gamma radiation. Also keep in mind that when limits to substances are declared and promulgated it is usually based on an estimation predicated by current known sources of exposure of that time. So the published limits can sometimes be arbitrarily based on what the expected dose should be.
Overall I thought the point he was trying to make is that the limits are extremely low and unwarranted for the sole purpose of inciting enough fear to dissuade others in possibly discovering some unknown beneficial aspect of nuclear materials.
BHelmet said:
Can't really argue for or against your NLP stance (still need to re-watch the vid) , but I do think we should pause before quoting anything from a government-sponsored study. There are reams of government sponsored studies that "prove" theories known to be patently false here on the forum. Smoking, high fat diets, and Iodine supplementation come to mind here.
Richard S said:
Why are alpha particles so dangerous? They are Helium atoms, which falls in the same group of atomic elements that are deemed the most stable forms of matter on the periodic table. Radiation in general seems to be nature's balancing act to produce stable matter from something that is unstable. Kind of like a rebirth. Take for instance the thriving wildlife after Chernobyl event.
As T.C. posted I tend to agree that all matter is radioactive but with varying degrees. Everything is on a spectrum which is a cycle. It begins with the lighter, less dense elements or matter and then moves to the more dense atoms until they reach a certain point and begin to radiate matter in the form of energy or materials of lesser density (speaking in atomic terms).
I think the real issue here is dosage. Sure, if you are directly adjacent to a nuclear blast then you will most likely visit 5th Density sooner rather than later. However, I do not think the situation is so black and white as to claim all radiation is bad. To the contrary, low level radiation and associated materials may be very beneficial. It's not that far of a stretch to ponder the possibility that the government may be using fear to obfuscate some kind of benefit from nuclear materials. Not that I came to these conclusions from Winsor alone but the reading done afterwards relating to the topic.
Radiation spas in Europe and Japan.
__http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81664&page=1
There are other quirky articles like this floating around the net that report on the benefits of these so called radiation spas which may serve as anecdotal evidence for radiation hormesis mentioned in LQB's post. There seems to be just enough contrary views relating to the health aspects of nuclear radiation without even delving into any kind of energy implications. So I am a bit curious about all of this to be honest.
I must admit that this topic pressed a few buttons on me - the nuclear energy question is a big topic here in Germany as you may know. So thank you everyone for your extremely intelligent and insightful comments here!!
Sorry for the crude analogy, but maybe it's a bit like the "holocaust denial" meme: deniying the suffering of so many groups of people (including many Jews) during the Nazi craze is a clear insult to the victims and just plain ridiculous. But of course, the history of WW2 was written - as always - by the victors, and the war crimes by the allied forces were played down, as well as US financing of Hitler, Germany becoming a vassal state of the US after the war and so on.
So maybe something similar is going on here? Claiming that nuclear power plants and radiation are completely harmless is a tasteless insult to the victims of Fukushima, Tschernobyl, Hieroshyma etc. But still, the fact that nuclear energy is so tightly controlled for "safety reasons" is a bit suspicious, considering that the PTB couldn't care less about our safety and health. So maybe someone wants to hinder the studying of radioactivity by the scientific community because it might lead to some serious discoveries, maybe even relating to higher densities and such? So they exaggerate some of the dangers in order to tightly control this field of research, as trendsetter37 hinted at?
Fwiw.
Sorry for the crude analogy, but maybe it's a bit like the "holocaust denial" meme: deniying the suffering of so many groups of people (including many Jews) during the Nazi craze is a clear insult to the victims and just plain ridiculous. But of course, the history of WW2 was written - as always - by the victors, and the war crimes by the allied forces were played down, as well as US financing of Hitler, Germany becoming a vassal state of the US after the war and so on.
So maybe something similar is going on here? Claiming that nuclear power plants and radiation are completely harmless is a tasteless insult to the victims of Fukushima, Tschernobyl, Hieroshyma etc. But still, the fact that nuclear energy is so tightly controlled for "safety reasons" is a bit suspicious, considering that the PTB couldn't care less about our safety and health. So maybe someone wants to hinder the studying of radioactivity by the scientific community because it might lead to some serious discoveries, maybe even relating to higher densities and such? So they exaggerate some of the dangers in order to tightly control this field of research, as trendsetter37 hinted at?
Fwiw.
Richs
The Cosmic Force
Regarding gamma rays from the Sun, it is true that the Sun produces gamma rays, but they are absorbed by the matter of the Sun before they can be emitted into space and converted into visible light rays which do get emitted by the Sun, along with ultraviolet. Gamma rays are emitted during solar flares, but these are not that often and do not last for extended times.trendsetter37 said:
Gamma rays from lightning are also very brief, and even if fairly intensive do not give one much of a dose. Keep in mind that gamma rays and xrays are electromagnetic radiation just like visible light, except are more energenic and can cause damage because they penetrate our tissues and can even pass completely through us. However, the rays which interact before getting through our bodies do damage to our cells and our DNA, depending upon what they happen to hit.
Since gamma rays are electromagnetic rays, they follow the same rules as does light. That is, they follow the inverse square rule which means that their intensity is inverse to the square of the distance from the source (1 divided by the distance squared) so the amount of exposure becomes much less as one goes further from the source. A lightning strike a mile away for less than a second is not going to give any significant radiation dose and is probably not even measurable.
Dosage is calculated by considering the intensity and amount of time exposed to the radiation source.
I agree that it is possible there are some beneficial effects from some measure of particular radiation exposure, but overall there is overwhelming evidence of the dangers.
While it is not being reported in the mainstream press from Japan, most women there are afraid to conceive a child because of the tremendous amount of birth defects and stillborn or terminated pregnancies. Doctors are being told not to report, or even admit to patients, that cancers of all sorts are due to the massive radiation in the environment.
When the plume from Fukushima hit the US, the government turned off all the radiation monitoring stations so the public would not be aware of the extremely high dosage they were being exposed to. People who live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants have a much higher incidence of cancers than those living elsewhere. It has been found that xray cancer screening has produced more breast cancer than it has detected.
Actually, alpha particle are not helium atoms. (From http://laboratorysafetyandmanagement.blogspot.in/2011/12/hazards-of-alpha-and-beta-particles-and.html) "Alpha particles are produced when an atom ejects two protons and two neutrons from its nucleus resulting in a subatomic fragment that is similar to a helium nucleus.
These particles are relatively heavy and are highly charged and are therefore able to emit ions in a very localized region. This also means that alpha particles have a short range of a few centimeters - every time an ion is produced, it loses energy. In air, depending on the individual alpha particle’s energy, it can have a velocity of about one-twentieth the speed of light. Once they run out of energy and become non-radioactive, they turn into helium atoms by accepting free electrons.
What are the hazards of alpha particles?
Alpha particles are normally unable to penetrate the epidermis of the skin, especially when it is a considerable distance from the target. However, when present in large amounts within a close distance, they are able to penetrate the epidermis and enter the body, thus becoming hazardous.
Alpha particles can also enter the body via other routes, some of these including: oral ingestion; inhalation; and even absorption into the bloodstream. However when inside the body, with no epidermis to stop their movements, they are able to travel just enough distances into into tissues to cause considerable damage.
This can lead to cancer, particularly lung cancer when alpha particles have been inhaled. However, tissues are not the only things that get damaged. If the alpha particles accumulate in an organ, they will also damage the cells of that particular organ resulting in organ damage."
This is again a misinterpretation which leads to a wrong conclusion. Many elements have isotopes, and while they are still considered the same element, and even used in the body the same exact way, some of these isotopes are radioactive and contribute to what is referred to as the background radiation we are all exposed to.
From Wikipedia: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Potassium (K) has 24 known isotopes from 32K to 56K. Three isotopes occur naturally: stable 39K (93.3%) and 41K (6.7%), and the long-lived radioisotope 40K (0.012%).
The relative atomic mass is 39.0983.
Naturally occurring radioactive 40K decays to stable 40Ar (10.72% of decays) by electron capture or positron emission (giving it the longest known positron-emitter nuclide half-life). Alternately, and most of the time (89.28%), it decays to stable 40Ca by beta decay. 40K has a half-life of 1.248×109 years. The long half life of this primordial radioisotope is caused by a highly spin-forbidden transition: 40K has a nuclear spin of 4, while both of its decay daughters are even-even isotopes with spins of 0.
40K occurs in natural potassium (and thus in some commercial salt substitutes) in sufficient quantity that large bags of those substitutes can be used as a radioactive source for classroom demonstrations. In healthy animals and people, 40K represents the largest source of radioactivity, greater even than 14C. In a human body of 70 kg mass, about 4,400 nuclei of 40K decay per second."
Maybe we are even dependent upon some of this naturally occurring radioactivity for our bodily processes since we have been exposed to this for practically forever and our metabolism has incorporated this into a useful function.
It may very well be that some particular amount of radiation of the right type in the right places in our bodies is not only helpful but necessary. I just don't go along with the idea that large uncontrolled doses of radiation is not harmful.
Richard S said:
It is a very large subject, and as was mention concerning it's wide spectrum, there are many points, types, interconnections, dosages etc. - not sure where to start as my belief system on any possible benefits of nuclear are ingrained; yet one might recall the explosion over Siberia, Tunguska and some of the changing DNA - can't find exactly where it was discussed, yet some tribes people seemed to have changed in some way. Nonetheless, by degree there may be useful things in some types of exposures, and perhaps like the vilification of tobacco, some people's constitutions may benefit in ways that can't be well understood. Here is a further discussion on Natural Radiation Hormesis http://www.radiation-hormesis.com/.
Charade
Jedi Master
When Ralph Nader described plutonium as "the most toxic substance known to mankind", Cohen, then a tenured professor, offered to consume on camera as much plutonium oxide as Nader could consume of caffeine,[21] the stimulant found in coffee and other beverages, which in its pure form has an oral (LD50) of 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats.[22] Nader did not accept the challenge.[23]
[/quote]
I had Ralph Nader on a flight about 10 years ago. His eating habits were pathetic. He wanted the whole can of Coke and all the peanuts,pretzels and cookies he could get. Like when was your last real meal? He seemed run down or really tired maybe. Not the boasting charismatic naysayer he used to be on TV back in the day.
[/quote]
I had Ralph Nader on a flight about 10 years ago. His eating habits were pathetic. He wanted the whole can of Coke and all the peanuts,pretzels and cookies he could get. Like when was your last real meal? He seemed run down or really tired maybe. Not the boasting charismatic naysayer he used to be on TV back in the day.