Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

[Kari Lynn]

I have read much of what is written here. I'm not sure I'd say that radiation was harmless. But certainly not something to be afraid of, unless someone intends to intentionally blow up a nuclear weapon or power plant in your area. There certainly are enough precautions a person can take to lessen radiation poisoning. (some will always be present and absorbed, even when wearing a suite)
I used to be very afraid of anything nuclear. Thinking if a bomb or power plant went off, it was the end of the world. Well, if your far enough away, not necessarily. Don't get me wrong.... Nuclear fission and fusion are VERY deadly. If out of control. If safety protocals are not followed, or at ground Zero.
My cousin and his wife are both nuclear physicists. They have been to Elgin Island to test the levels. Some 60 years later, and it's still not habitable without some pretty heavy risks. Birth defects and slow kill poisoning (cancer) most prominent. He went to Elgin Island in T-shirt and shorts as well as his wife. I was very concerned and questioned him about his safety. His reply was, "well, I don't piss glowing green!" lol.
But his wife and him raises dogs as his kids. They have to both quit their jobs and remain unemployed from that field of employment for 7 years before even attempting to conceive. He is now 57 yrs of age, I believe. So I don't think they plan to have children now.
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed. The animals would have decomposed and been eaten by other bugs and animals who are less suceptable (sp) to the radiation poisoning. Plants are even resilient. It grows back quickly. So it may look like it wasn't affected.
Personally, I trust my cousin. Certainly don't be afraid of it, but do be cautious. We would not want to have an incident like Russia or Japan here. Safety has to be enforced. We would not want to be building one of these over a flood zone, fault line, etc... OR with inferior building materials and practices.
Personally, I believe that there are other ways...safer ways.... cleaner ways to make electricity. With no nuclear waste and hazards. (air pollution from coal either.)
Our scientists need to research that further. But.... how to get the big corps, to let go their money and let this new technology come in?
As far as those that have died from direct nuclear fallout as a result of those power plant malfunctions. I don't know the numbers. But it should be agreed that SOME have died as a direct result of those power plant malfunctions.
If you had watched the documentary that they showed last week about Chernoble now, you'd have seen the pictures parents showed of their children who had died from it. children dying of thyroid cancer? Isn't just 1, one to many? If it were your son or daughter? If it were only just one of my children, it would be one too many for me.

[TargeT]

Posted by Kari Lynn (here)
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed.

you make some absolute statements in the above post, statements that need backing up.

answer me this: what were the radiation levels at Chernobyl? (at the reactor during the failure, outside the reactor during the failure, 1000 meters from the reactor duriing the failure; 1 week after the failure out side the sarcophagus, 1000 meters from the sarcophagus etc.. any would do)


do you allow your children to drive in cars? how many infant deaths in cars were there LAST WEEK, how many infant deaths from radiation were there last YEAR?


in your post you are expressing ideas and thoughts that have been impressed on the world population by "authority" figures; but these authority figures have little to no actual data and make wild assumptions to gain the information they give out.


This topic has been thoroughly discussed in other threads on this forum and the basic conclusion is this:


Low levels of radiation are healthy for you (just like low levels of about anything) after a certain point radiation ( like everything else) becomes toxic.

The linear no threshold model is completely incorrect and based on guesses that are backed by no data (the assumption is that because high level exposure is bad, it must be bad all the way down to zero exposure, thus a linear model).

did you know there were many hundreds of people AT ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived and not only that, lived longer than average life spans?

this topic (like most) is very complex & needs diligent study to understand; you won't fully grasp it in a "skim" or quick read.



At this point, based on multiple examples, case studies and testimony; any opinion that largely deviates from these conclusions is incorrect.

[Kari Lynn]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Kari Lynn (here)
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed.

you make some absolute statements in the above post, statements that need backing up.
You would have to have watched the documentaries on television. That is not something I can provide here. You'll have to check that out for yourself. Do a little homework for yourself. Are you trying to say that NO animals died as a result of the blast and radiation there? I suggest you prove that. Pretty sad when people can't be accepted at their word isn't it?

answer me this: what were the radiation levels at Chernobyl? (at the reactor during the failure, outside the reactor during the failure, 1000 meters from the reactor duriing the failure; 1 week after the failure out side the sarcophagus, 1000 meters from the sarcophagus etc.. any would do)
The levels do not concern me, therefore I do not care to look them up. A person of laymans terminology concerning nuclear physics can't understand technical terms anyway. My cousin who IS a physicist would understand it better than I, but he certainly wouldn't bother explaining it to me in his technical terms. I wouldn't understand anyway. I am satisfied with what I have read or heard about it in my layman's terms. If you are not, I suggest you go look up those numbers.



do you allow your children to drive in cars? how many infant deaths in cars were there LAST WEEK, how many infant deaths from radiation were there last YEAR?
Again, I do not concern myself with numbers. Isn't one death, one too many? Shouldn't we try to prevent them? All of them. I believe that is why we have car seats, road rules, as well as protocals for nuclear safety. I am a human activist. I hold ALL life dear, even if it's just 1. But especially if that 1 is my 1.
Just because I'd put my legal aged driving child behind the wheel of a car, doesn't mean I would give him an UNSAFE car! It has to have good breaks, good tires, etc... So likewise, just because I let him drive, doesn't mean I'd want him to go walk into the middle of core/ sarcophagus right after it exploded.



in your post you are expressing ideas and thoughts that have been impressed on the world population by "authority" figures; but these authority figures have little to no actual data and make wild assumptions to gain the information they give out.
Obviously you missed the part where I said, "I used to be very afraid of anything nuclear." ? I'm not so much anymore. My point was to make known that radiation is survivable. But safety has to be taken. It appears your reading your own thoughts into my words. I myself feel it is also a wild assumption to think that radiation can't kill at all. Even ONE person. And if you read my entire post, you would have seen the number I posted. Even if it's only 1 person. That's my point. government's and corp's weigh acceptable losses. Do you believe there should be acceptable losses? I don't. I believe there should be SAFETY. So much of these accidents were lack of SAFETY at some point. THAT'S what I find unacceptable.



This topic has been thoroughly discussed in other threads on this forum and the basic conclusion is this:


Low levels of radiation are healthy for you (just like low levels of about anything) after a certain point radiation ( like everything else) becomes toxic.
I agree with this. My cousin is living proof of this to me. As well as the fact that I had 8 MRI's done in a 3 month period. what ever gave you the impression that I said ALL radiation is lethal? I never said that. I said it was survivable. Even a nuclear bomb dropped on a city is SURVIVABLE. If you are far enough away to survive the initial blast, get to a fall out shelter, and stay there until the fall out levels become acceptable. My point was SAFETY, PRECAUTION, PREPAREDNESS


The linear no threshold model is completely incorrect and based on guesses that are backed by no data (the assumption is that because high level exposure is bad, it must be bad all the way down to zero exposure, thus a linear model).Again, I never said NO threshold. I said it was survivable. But if you think it's not harmful and no one at Chernoble has died from it, prove that to me, because I don't believe that.



did you know there were many hundreds of people AT ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived and not only that, lived longer than average life spans?
So does that prove that the radiation poisoning didn't happen? Many hundreds survived. For how long? Did they suffer poisoning later? Hair fall out, etc... How many more survived at Hiroshima and Nagasaki than died?



this topic (like most) is very complex & needs diligent study to understand; you won't fully grasp it in a "skim" or quick read.



At this point, based on multiple examples, case studies and testimony; any opinion that largely deviates from these conclusions is incorrect.

As I said, my cousin is the nuclear physicist. I'm not. I can't provide you with technical terms and numbers. I'm not a scientist. But I do listen to one who is. My cousin. He says it's safe enough for him at certain levels, knows what he's doing, so I believe him. But just because I can't provide you with college and scientific text book studies, does that mean I CAN'T have an opinion? Pretty sad world when someone can't be held at their word, or there is no honor anymore.

[TargeT]

you can provide numbers, you can do your own research... you are as powerful as anyone you trust.

until you believe that and understand your own power this conversation is pointless. look into what has been presented on this forum, then decide. (as an aside, I've probably spent 800 hours (perhaps more) at least on this topic, via testimony and evidence, reports and other sources) that should not matter at all to you, you should find out for yourself.

search "Hormesis" or "nuclear scam" on this very forum and see the vast amount of evidence backing what I claim.

Posted by Kari Lynn (here)
I agree with this. My cousin is living proof of this to me. As well as the fact that I had 8 MRI's done in a 3 month period. what ever gave you the impression that I said ALL radiation is lethal? I never said that. I said it was survivable. Even a nuclear bomb dropped on a city is SURVIVABLE. If you are far enough away to survive the initial blast, get to a fall out shelter, and stay there until the fall out levels become acceptable. My point was SAFETY, PRECAUTION, PREPAREDNESS

well then, we agree on everything; fukushima is not that big of an issue.

I'm not even sure why you replied to this topic after the above statement.

[Kari Lynn]

It appears to me that you are a person who loves to be oppositional to everything I say, so it doesn't matter what my opinion of Fukushima is, you'd try to twist it in the opposite direction of what I was saying. So why don't you try reading my post again and see if you can actually understand what I was saying, because it appears that you don't.
I am not a scientist or a college student of nuclear sciences. I do not care to look up numbers, particles, science study manuals etc... I look simply at the results.
At some point, to learn anything in life, a person has to listen to another who knows more than them. Be it their teacher, dean, parent, someone who has written a book or manual about their studies, or cousin who has that professional college training. So am I to tell my cousin who has been through college, professionally trained that I don't believe a word he says and believe a man who puts a lecture on the internet? Or are you like that blond on the commercial who believes it because it's on the internet and you can't put it on the internet if it isn't true?
So now my question to you is; would you like to continue this arguement of the simple subject that just because I don't have a college degree in nuclear physics, I do have a right to have an opinion about it? Or perhaps we can just agree to disagree on anything I say.

[1 flew over]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Kari Lynn (here)
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed.

you make some absolute statements in the above post, statements that need backing up.

answer me this: what were the radiation levels at Chernobyl? (at the reactor during the failure, outside the reactor during the failure, 1000 meters from the reactor duriing the failure; 1 week after the failure out side the sarcophagus, 1000 meters from the sarcophagus etc.. any would do)

Hi Guys

Just finished watching a fascinating video called The Battle of Chernobyl. I found it very well done and much more factually done than anything that you will normally get out of the western media. Among others it has quite a bit of current input by Michail Gorbichov, someone who at this point would gain very little by trying to deceive. It is a fascinating documentary about how close the world came and how many lives were lost in an attempt to keep Chernobyl from becoming a truly enormously disastrous event. Documentation has shown that the actual cost of Chernobyl was thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It can be found at http://documentarystorm.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/ . Please watch the video before you start to rebuff me on it.

Just for the a little perspective; I worked at the nuclear test site in southern/central Nevada during the summers for about 8 years while going to college and grad school. I wore a radiation safety badge to monitor my exposure levels and swapped it out every week and it was checked every day when working in some areas. There were times when working in a “hot” area, I would wear very tightly woven coveralls, booties, gloves, hood and a face shield/respirator all taped together at the seams while in these areas. I was quite happy when my children were born with only one head and two feet and hands each.

Early in the 20th century many women developed lip and or tongue cancer when they would lick their brushes to help create a sharp point while painting radium on watch dials so they could be seen in the dark. They would sometimes paint their fingernails with it so they would also glow. The bosses of course would not handle the stuff and told the women that it was perfectly safe. Male dominance is not a new thing.

Many people have had barium used in medical diagnosis by drinking it or having it used as an enema. These are called upper or lower gastrointestinal series. Crazy part is the rest of the vial is now considered a nuclear hazardous waste and has to be disposed of very specifically even though the rest of it is now excrements from inside a human body. It has been and still is used in quite a few medical procedures from the above listed to gum disease diagnosis to cancer treatment and many other. X-rays do not easily pass through the molecularly dense barium.

So once again the truth lies somewhere in between or across the entire range. Radiation is a part of nature, some types are necessary for life, some is not dangerous and some is deadly lethal and can kill absolutely everyone around it in minutes. It might be wise to know which are which.

Be Well
1 Flew over

[TargeT]

Posted by 1 flew over (here)
Documentation has shown that the actual cost of Chernobyl was thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It can be found at http://documentarystorm.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/ .

Please find this documentation and discover it's validity (or non-validity, as it's based on a novel with no peer review or fact checking done whatsoever)

Chernobyl was a disaster, many people died, hundreds at the scene of the accident due to the explosion and quite a few from radiation. Other than that the whole thing has been ultra blown out of proportion and the lie has been repeated so many times it's taken as fact; when a little research is done you'll find the lie is built on the back of a novel translated from Russian and published in a journal that gave it the "look" of being a peer reviewed scientific paper, but it wasn't and the journal has stated that.

a well put together film based on false information will be very convincing, but that does not make it true, check the sources and references of the info.


What this thread is attempting to do is bring to light the fact that low levels of radiation are healthy for people and should not be feared, high levels are bad for you, that is not in dispute, Chernobyl had high levels at the sarcophagus for a short while & it was most definitely dangerous, but the "fall out" from Chernobyl was actually not bad due to it's low levels of radiation, in fact it could be categorized as "good" (though no studies have been done to show that, at least not that I am aware of).

[Atlas]

Radiation damages the cells that make up the human body. Low levels of radiation are not dangerous, but medium levels can lead to sickness, headaches, vomiting and fever. High levels can kill you by causing damage to your internal organs. Exposure to radiation over a long time can cause cancer.

[TargeT]

Posted by buares (here)
Exposure to radiation over a long time can cause cancer.

exposure to radiation at certain mid-high levels... yes

at low levels it makes you have an exponentially LOWER cancer rate!

[Atlas]

From Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland:

How does ionising radiation affect the human body?

The effects of ionising radiation on the human body depend on the quantities of ionising radiation received. In general, when ionising radiation enters the body it deposits some of its energy in human tissue typically by ionising atoms or possibly breaking the bonds of a molecule. These chemical changes may damage the tissue which may not be repaired properly. In time, the damaged tissue may become a cancer.

What are the effects of very high doses?

In big enough quantities - i.e. those encountered by being very close to the site of a severe nuclear accident or explosion, such as the fire-fighters in the Chernobyl accident - ionising radiation can destroy human cells at a faster rate than they can be replaced by the natural regeneration of cells that occurs continually in the body. There is a high risk that this can cause serious illness and even death.

What are the effects of medium doses?

At medium doses, that is, those encountered by being exposed to a large source of radiation for a long period i.e. high radon concentrations in your home for a number of years, there is a medium risk that this may eventually lead to cancer several to forty years later.

What are the effects of low doses?

At low doses, that is, those typically encountered if you have low concentrations of radon in your home, there is a small risk that the damage caused to human cells will lead to cancer.

Is there a proven link between ionising radiation and cancer?

Yes, there is a general scientific consensus that ionising radiation can trigger changes in human tissue that can, in some circumstances, mutate into cancer. The risk rises in line with increased exposure to ionising radiation, in the same way that the risk of skin cancer grows with increased exposure to the sun’s rays.

Is natural radiation less harmful than radiation from artificial sources?

No. For a given amount of radiation, there is no difference between the harm caused by natural or artificial radiation.

[TargeT]

general scientific consensus

yep, those same 3 words told us that global warming was going to kill the world by 2020 or some crap....


in science, there is no such thing as consensus, it is either proved one way or the other, if you get both results you keep trying till you can get empirical results with a solid theory backing them.

What your entire post above is called: Appeal to authority (a logical fallacy)

[Atlas]

Posted by TargeT (here)
general scientific consensus

yep, those same 3 words told us that global warming was going to kill the world by 2020 or some crap....

You don't even have an other-than-scientific consensus to back up your health-benefit-from-radiation claims

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland never said global warming to kill the world by 2020, your imagination is the only one to say this.

You can't just say science is wrong and I am right, if you have better arguments then prove it, but of course, you don't have any...

[1 flew over]

[QUOTE=TargeT;735955]

Posted by 1 flew over (here)
What this thread is attempting to do is bring to light the fact that low levels of radiation are healthy for people and should not be feared, high levels are bad for you, that is not in dispute, Chernobyl had high levels at the sarcophagus for a short while & it was most definitely dangerous, but the "fall out" from Chernobyl was actually not bad due to it's low levels of radiation, in fact it could be categorized as "good" (though no studies have been done to show that, at least not that I am aware of).

TargeT

Factually I have no intention or desire to spend the time and energy to do a “fact check” to try to prove anything to you. Science cannot prove anything it can only give levels of certainty or probabilities of repeatability. It can only disprove absolutes.

I will leave others who watch the video to form their own opinions and make up their own minds as to what actually makes sense to them. Gorbichov himself said that they do not have the funding to do much more on it. I will leave the fact checking to the Russians who completely shut down the facility rather than try to even clean up the area. Oh no, let’s leave it to France to prove or even release existing data about the effects of fallout after all they only get around 75% of their power from nukes.

I worked in a radiation area. I lost both my father and brother to cancer, both worked at the test site. Can anyone “prove” that their involvement in radioactive environments caused their cancer? Probably not. Because as long as there are enormous amounts of money involved in production of energy, either fossil fuels or nuclear, there will always be ”scientists” who are willing to skew their findings for their own purpose. There will be highly paid lobbyists that are willing to sell their soul and their planet for money. There will be commissioners, congressmen and senators who are willing to turn the heads or write laws to promote whoever or whatever pays them well at the time. The U S Government, the best system of government that money can buy. To hell with "we the people".

Would you please post all the pier reviewed documents revealing that low levels or radiation are good for people and please do not go into that we all need sunshine to be healthy.

Given all of the above, I am still a proponent of nuclear power but it must be used intelligently, the industry may or may not be capable of doing that. I prefer renewable, it has high front end costs but very low impact and over the years will pay for themselves. I personally think that fossil fuels and their procurement are killing our planet and its people, and I own stocks from oil discovery and drilling companies.

Your mileage may vary.
Be Well

1 Flew Over

[TargeT]

Posted by buares (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
general scientific consensus

yep, those same 3 words told us that global warming was going to kill the world by 2020 or some crap....

You don't even have an other-than-scientific consensus to back up your health-benefit-from-radiation claims

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland never said global warming to kill the world by 2020, your imagination is the only one to say this.

You can't just say science is wrong and I am right, if you have better arguments then prove it, but of course, you don't have any...

we have some good direct testimony here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post723800

we have the 10,000 person exposure case study here: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

areas of the US that have a higher natural background radiation level also have a lower average cancer percentages.

You and I have gone back and forth on this, you just choose not to read what I present, If your are interested you can find the stuff just like I did, it's not hidden any further than the keyboard in front of you, there's plenty of info in the nuclear scam & hormesis threads.

Posted by 1 flew over (here)
Can anyone “prove” that their involvement in radioactive environments caused their cancer?

see above for a 10,000 person, 20 year case study that "proves" that low level radiation is very very healthy for you.

if your relatives had actually been exposed to radiation they would have been better off. As you worked in the industry yourself you know hte DRASTIC measures they go through to avoid exposure, I bet your relatives were exposed to less radiation than the average person is due to this (and suffered accordingly).

for the past 6 months I have been wearing a polished piece of uranium ore around my neck, this is how confident I am in the information I have found by UNBIASED research.

I am not alone in this, I just apparently am the only one willing to try and show people the reality of the situation.

[Kimberley]

TagetT you know I am with you on this. I for one am not going to try to convince anyone of anything. Several of us have gathered a lot of evidence that supports Galen Winsor's claims and now it is available for anyone else to go through it all and come to their own conclusions.

I no longer hold the fear based thoughts I use to have in the radiation arena. I am thankful for that and would love every one to have the same peace, however I only have control over me :-)

I do want to add one last thing. Read Dr Bruce Lipton's book "The Biology of Belief" or listen to some of his lectures found all over the web. What we believe has the most power over what we experience.

And do not believe me for one second...I know nothing. :-)

Much love to us all!

[Atlas]

Posted by TargeT (here)
we have some good direct testimony here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post723800

we have the 10,000 person exposure case study here: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

areas of the US that have a higher natural background radiation level also have a lower average cancer percentages.

You and I have gone back and forth on this, you just choose not to read what I present, If your are interested you can find the stuff just like I did, it's not hidden any further than the keyboard in front of you, there's plenty of info in the nuclear scam & hormesis threads.

I read all of this, and my conclusion is: there is NO proven benefit. Are two BIASED threads a consensus ?

Why won't you answer 1 flew over's request:

Posted by 1 flew over (here)
Would you please post all the pier reviewed documents revealing that low levels or radiation are good for people

Here:

Title: Even low-level radioactivity is damaging
Source: University of South Carolina
Author: Steven Powell
Date: Nov. 13, 2012

Broad analysis of many radiation studies finds no exposure threshold that precludes harm to life

Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation had small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe that have very high natural background radiation as a result of the minerals in the ground there [...]

[Timothy Mousseau, a biologist in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina] and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. [...]

The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. [...]

The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

“There’s been a sentiment in the community that because we don’t see obvious effects [...],” said Mousseau. “But when you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects.”

[...] “With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there’s an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it’s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level,” he said. “But they’re assuming the natural background levels are fine.”“And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports.”

Full article: www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5214#.UkXk8H9j1b7

[panopticon]

Posted by 1 flew over (here)
Just finished watching a fascinating video called The Battle of Chernobyl. I found it very well done and much more factually done than anything that you will normally get out of the western media. Among others it has quite a bit of current input by Michail Gorbichov, someone who at this point would gain very little by trying to deceive. It is a fascinating documentary about how close the world came and how many lives were lost in an attempt to keep Chernobyl from becoming a truly enormously disastrous event. Documentation has shown that the actual cost of Chernobyl was thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It can be found at http://documentarystorm.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/ . Please watch the video before you start to rebuff me on it.

G'day 1 flew over,

Thanks for the video link.
I hadn't seen that one before and enjoyed hearing the perspective on the accident from a number of persons who were directly involved.
In particular it was interesting to hear Gorbachev talk about how little he had been told about the accident until a few days later.

Seems as though it doesn't matter what political system or what culture a nuclear accident happens in.
Some vested interest will try to hush it up as much as possible.

Also interesting to hear the same metallic taste being spoken about by the liquidators etc at Chernobyl as at Fukushima and 3 Mile.

Here's the video for those who didn't follow the link:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FdMLFJJyWnM

BTW this is from 2006 and the new sarcophagus still isn't finished (last estimate I read puts it in October 2015). For more information on the New Safe Confinement (NSC) Structure visit here. Here's a quick overview of the new structure:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GdXBaBbqpHs

Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[1 flew over]

Posted by TargeT (here)

for the past 6 months I have been wearing a polished piece of uranium ore around my neck, this is how confident I am in the information I have found by UNBIASED research.

TargeT

I have read everything on this thread including the links. I will now start reading the nuclear scam & hormesis threads info elsewhere in PA.

I lived in southern Nevada throughout my youth and then moved to the mountains of Colorado where I participated in mountaineering, climbing, mountain rescue, back country as well as downhill skiing and generally hanging out and backpacking at high altitude. Being a young male at the time I never used sun block so sunburned (radiated) myself many times. Hell, only wimps and dermatologists wear sunblock. Now as I move into old fartdom I, my sister and my mother who has blessedly moved into ancient fartdom, all go in every couple of years and have those pesky skin cancers removed from our faces, shoulders and backs. Humm, must have been the water. So far only one of mine has been melanoma and it was cut out fairly early, so I am not a big proponent of your “a little radiation is always a good thing” hypothesis.

As we both know the blessing and curse of the information age is that we can always find plenty of info to justify what we each care to believe. Hell, you of course know that the holocaust never actually happened; I’ll send you a passel of links. Yea, you becha.

I will read the above mentioned links and will report back to you. In the mean time I wish you well with your uranium pendant. We each form our opinions based on our own experience, knowledge and education self or inputted. Peace Brother.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

[TargeT]

You're presuming that cancer is caused solely or mostly by radiation, this is an entirely different subject, but my current understanding of cancer is that it is a cellular reaction to fungal growth, something that our bodies mostly take care of themselves but since we tax.our systems so heavily with processed foods, preservatives, vaccines, etc etc,, cancer is now much more prevalent.

Again, off topic; but one thing radiation does is eradicate fungus & stimulate the immune system.

Anyway, best to find this for your self, the info is definitely out there

[1 flew over]

[QUOTE=panopticon;736349]

Posted by 1 flew over (here)


G'day 1 flew over,

Thanks for the video link.
I hadn't seen that one before and enjoyed hearing the perspective on the accident from a number of persons who were directly involved.
In particular it was interesting to hear Gorbachev talk about how little he had been told about the accident until a few days later.

Seems as though it doesn't matter what political system or what culture a nuclear accident happens in.
Some vested interest will try to hush it up as much as possible.

Panopticon

Thank you for your added input concerning the Chernobyl facility. From the website it looks like it is progressing well. But without being able to read Russian it is a bit difficult for me to follow. In my opinion it is good to see that something is being done to isolate the high level area. There must be someone who thinks that there is a reason to contain the old core.

As you mentioned vested interest will try to hush it up and the media will try to instill fear and a concept of impending doom in everyone. What a strange world in which we live. As I said before; somewhere in between probably lays the truth.

Be Well
1 Flew Over