A video they won't want you to see (Galen Winsor: nuclear scare scam) [Archive] - Page 2

PDA

View Full Version : A video they won't want you to see (Galen Winsor: nuclear scare scam)

Pages : 1 [2]

Referee

14th December 2012, 03:45

Amazing Work Kimberley. I eagerly await Mr. Keshe's Response to this material.

Kimberley

2nd January 2013, 21:51

778 neighbour of some guy

2nd January 2013, 22:11

Now that IS impressive, having nukes for breakfast, "are there any SS20 leftovers in the fridge sweetheart, i have the munchies after smoking that last cruisemissile roach you left in the ashtray".

USA be afraid, be very afraid:rolleyes:

Gardener

3rd January 2013, 00:37

The bigger the lie huh?
Galen Winsor is compelling information, wow, if that is true, goodness me
I think I have cognitive dissonance, well I think I think!:der:

778 neighbour of some guy

3rd January 2013, 12:22

ljwheat

3rd January 2013, 15:13

I have a lot of questions racing through my mind right now, i am aware zeolites are used to absorb radiation ( amongst other things, like chemicals and heavy metals etc etc) and i used Ultra Liquid zeolite myself and it cleared up my brainfog( combined with MMS/CDS and some supergreens), but here is my current question ( see Dawns thread on Hormesis for this too, alt sci/med section of the forum), if radiation in modest doses is actually good for you, is the whole zeolite hype a scam to deplete your body of the radiation it actually needs or does it only remove the excess, and how about those radiation water filters/bottles they put out on the market these days ( RAD filters), iodine???? makes me wonder, how much radiation is good for you and how much is bad for you becomes even more mysterious now, i can no longer tell. They could be killing you or curing you at the same time or at least keep you in a defficient state because we can not seperate truth from fiction.

Somewhat puzzled mixed with feeling screwed now.

Anybody has a clue to the correct approach? Please post.

Thank you, i will be glowing in anticipation for your anwser.

Plumber, very good questions that most of us who are over the fear of what has been spoon fed to us over the years.

Like Kimberley I am waiting anxiously for Mr. keshe’s added knowledge on this and then some.

You mentioned MMS did you purchase the pro-decal book of recipes on exact dosages to mix for different type of ailments? This I think is what your question boils down to, electricity -- from Lightning millions of volts to computer chip that run almost on static, all of witch has its purpose.

Building a book of pro-decals would be of great help by those who are not under this black out and fear projection of keeping this all under raps.

There is a way right now that can be employed.

Exposure to the Sun for two hours, is a sun burn, but 15 minutes every couple of hours 8 doses in one day is one hell of a vitamin D intake that would probably cure just about anything that ails you.

Until we get exact number’s and quantity’s dividing it up smaller doses is the way to go, just like food what we eat in three meals divide that into 8 mini meals is the perfect dose for food very few are actually practicing.

We are so spoon fed what they want us to learn, with no alterative learning it a wonder we are still all alive. Its all about portions -- everything.

Hiding this stuff about radiation or staying quiet about the truth is in my book Criminal and cruelty against life itself.

What ever we do, I would suggest a journal of 8 pro-decals including food, this fast food, fast living, fast remedies society we are living in is killing us. IMHO

meat suit

3rd January 2013, 22:34

Ok I am so looking forward to getting a response from Mr Keshe about Galen's information coming after January 14th as he agreed to.

Kerry Cassidy posted this in her blog and I feel it fits in here because these two people are claiming that they need radiation to thrive....

Kerry wrote in her blog today this:

The information contained in this video is vital to understanding the increasing radioactive environment in which we live. It can help you process and learn to increase your ability to deal with the changing energies.

I have contacted this couple via email and hope to do an interview either via Livestream or radio shortly.

Highly Recommended.

173zxfh9pNk

Much love!!!

I have to say that this video has stirred me up quite a bit, either these guys are hybrids or they are trying to scam their way into a more profitable situation. its that black and white really. they dont look particularly healthy... there is no proof in this video of their claims, they could just move to chernobyl, plenty of radioactiv material to eat and rent-free property to choose from... I am keen to hear more of them....

thanks Kimberly x

Kimberley

25th January 2013, 22:39

It has been a while since anyone has posted here...

Here is my e-mail correspondence with Mr Keshe's secretary... I sent an e-mail January 22 and got no reply then sent it again yesterday and got her reply this morning

Much love! :grouphug:

**********************
Follow up Re: Interview with Ms. Kimberley Jaeger -December 10 2012

Hello Desire and Mr Keshe and to whom else reads this,

I continue doing my part to help promote The Keshe Foundation :-)

When I interviewed Mr Keshe on Dec 10th 2012 he agreed to view the Galen Winsor lecture recorded in 1986 and get back to me with his views of Galen's claims that nuclear energy reactors are not as dangerous as most have been led to believe.

Mr Keshe said to get back to him after January 14. I decided to wait a week and then with the posting of the Peace treaty and conference proposal I have waited until today to contact Mr Keshe again. Thank you Mr Keshe for your peace plan!!

My preference would be if Mr Keshe and I could do another recorded interview after he has viewed Galen WInsor's claims. And I would like to include in our next interview information about the Peace treaty and conference and talk about the study groups to help promote both of those important developments.

My schedule is mostly open and at this point Thursdays and Fridays would be the best days....You tell me the best time I am flexible on that. Thank you.

I would very much like to get Mr. Keshe's view of this information "The Nuclear Power Scam lecture by Galen Winsor" and Mr Keshe agreed to give his views on this in our interview on December 10 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA it is an hour and a half lecture form 1986 just prior to the chernobyl incident.

Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.

Galen Winsor has traveled and lectured all over America, spoken on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people ... so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world's most valuable power resource. Filmed by Ben Williams in 1986.

Galen passed on several years ago at the age of 85. I personally interviewed Ben Williams, the gentleman that filmed this lecture, as to verify the authenticity of Galen Windsor. If you would like to listen to that interview please do let me know.

Any way I/we would be very grateful to have Mr. Keshe's view on this information.

So thank you for your assistance setting this up!

All the best

Kimberley
***************************

Hallo Kimberley,

Due to Mr. Keshe's work abroad he will not be able to have an interview before the first week of February.

Please contact us again the second week of February.

Thank you.

All the best,
Desiré

Desiré Blok
Secretary of M.T. Keshe

scanner

26th January 2013, 09:21

Thanks Kimberley for updating this post .

Hughe

29th January 2013, 10:53

I'm glad I could see it finally today.

ljwheat

29th January 2013, 13:26

Radiation is Good for You?

by KARL GROSSMAN

Wolfe began by explaining, "’Hormesis,’ a Greek word meaning ‘impel, urge on,’ refers to the phenomenon by which gradually adding a toxic substance to an organism produces an initial beneficial effect?.The concept of small doses of radiation having beneficial effects on living organisms fits this model." He said there "are considerable data on laboratory animals and selected populations of humans from epidemiological studies that show beneficial effects of low levels of radiation."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/25/radiation-is-good-for-you/

I take it that Karl Grossman labeling this a scam is straddling the fence on this one, as this article has allot of good information --- was still put into print.

ljwheat

29th January 2013, 13:39

Ann Coulter go's up against Bill O’Reily’s ignorance on radiation and in a sense what Main stream media thinks about radiation as a whole. A couple of years ago before watching Galen Winsor presantation on radiation i to was very ignorant about the effects of radiation.

FXFUUGeV1DI

A Glowing Report on Radiation

Ann Coulter

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/03/16/a_glowing_report_on_radiation

Mar 16, 2011

ljwheat

29th January 2013, 14:08

Chronic Radiation Is Beneficial to Human Beings
by Yuan-Chi Luan

Below is a summary of an original article, “Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?” that was published in the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons.

http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.122.html

ljwheat

29th January 2013, 14:27

Dr Bob Bury (Consultant Radiologist, Leeds Teaching Hospital) discusses society's fears about radiation exposure and puts to bed some of the myths that are currently circulating on the subject matter.

This lecture was filmed at an event called: 'Stop worrying: Radiation is good for you'.

RSM Event Description:

"People worry about radiation. Our attitudes are coloured by fifty years of cold war threats of mutually assured nuclear destruction and by our natural dread concerning any silent, unseen killer. We worry even more - and sometimes get quite angry - when we are subjected to radiation by other people.

X-rays and gamma rays used in medical diagnosis comprise the main source of man-made radiation exposure in developed countries, and the amount increases every year - far exceeding the dose from nuclear reprocessing plants, about which there is (relatively) so much fuss. Radiation protection, and the optimisation of dose, is therefore an important part of the radiologist's job.

This talk will attempt to provide what is lacking in many discussions of radiation - a sense of perspective. It will review changes in attitude to radiation over the years following the discovery of x-rays by Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895, changes partly driven by the high-profile death of a millionaire playboy. After looking at the ways in which radiation professionals, and society, deal with protection issues in the 21st century, it will (hopefully) answer the question posed in the title of the talk. It will end with a surprising and uncomfortable suggestion...."

For more information on this event, click here.

Date of Lecture: 8th November 2010

Length: 00:46:54

http://www.rsmvideos.com/videoPlayer/?vid=115&class=videoThumb

ljwheat

29th January 2013, 14:35

Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses are Good for You
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html

ljwheat

29th January 2013, 14:44

Radiation Hormesis Explained by Jay Gutierrez - RadiationHormesis.com - Part 1

CFtXoH0WFQo

Kimberley

29th January 2013, 15:49

Wow Thank you John...I will look/listen asap... Much love! :grouphug:

Kimberley

30th January 2013, 21:11

ljwheat

30th January 2013, 21:44

John wow great finds!!! My day has been going through all you posted and I am not finished yet...thanks a lot!

The Radiation Hormesis Explained by Jay Gutierrez got me searching deeper because I wanted to fine a more recent interviews with him. The most recent interview I found was from August 30, 2012 and it is very good!

It can be listened to at this link it is 54 minutes:

http://www.conscioustalk.net/player.php?topic=Jay%20%20Gutierrez&color=FFFFCC&date=Aug%2030,%202012&file=/audio/20120830_jay_gutierrez.mp3

Did you read about the Save the Bee's discovery on Jay's web site...fascinating!! He talks about it this interview as it was only discovered last year.

This is Jay's web site http://www.nighthawkminerals.com/

I will be contacting Jay for an interview in the very near future.

Much love to us all!! :grouphug:

It never fails to amaze me how opening a door, no matter how small it may be that once safely inside the space you’ve entered has an endless number of doors to open that seem to connect to -- yet even more exciting and wondrous rooms of unlimited space and knowledge hidden from us, by simply not opening doors that are always in front of us.

At times I’m totally speechless and can only copy and paste. On this subject of radiation -- I see a day coming when all of us will be carrying rocks in our pockets instead of our heads. LOL Much love to us all.:grouphug:

P.S. -- Kimberly all these interviews are life saving revelations -- What else is out there? Thanks!

ljwheat

31st January 2013, 17:08

I was diagnosed with emphysema 11 years ago, and my holistic doctor help me with getting back 30 percent of my oxygen intake back, by having me use a cold humidifier with 10 drops of food grade hydrogen peroxide to breath when I sleep at night, did this for a month. The peroxide dissolved the old scare tissue from smoking for so many years.

And listening to Jay’s interview I’ve sent off for two of the gray stone necklaces one for me and one for my wife as a health maintenance / like going out in the sun daily for vitamin D radiation from the sun manufactures for us.

So am excited to try this Hormesis and its beneficial healing power’s from low level radiation.

The story on how Jay and family are helping the bee population is mind blowing and have ordered a stone to place in sugar water for the bee's in my yard, plus to add to the distilled water I make daily for personal use too.

And to think this all started be cause one man thought enough to interview and bring us this information about Galen Winsor the truth about atomic power and the effects of radiation.

The deeper we dig into this theory of Einstein’s everything is energy and how it all fits together is for me breath taking.

The benefits to the world and those who have hidden this from us is beyond criminal. IMHO falls in the line’s of mass murder and population control. On top of a free energy for the whole world, plus all the health benefits.

The 50’s are over and what has been hidden is coming to light at last. By fare this thread on Galen Winsor and his legacy is a "No Bell peace winner" and should be nominated to the that committee as such. And how to make this go viral is a step I’d like to see everyone here to push it with all our being.

Much love to us all.:grouphug:

The Bee's http://www.nighthawkminerals.com/savingthebee.html

ljwheat

4th February 2013, 18:40

The Bee's http://www.nighthawkminerals.com/savingthebee.html

:grouphug::bump:

Radiation Hormesis: Magic Stones and Cancer, Part One ;-- By Jacob Schor, ND

http://www.naturopathydigest.com/archives/2007/jul/schor.php

Andrew

6th February 2013, 17:33

Lord Christopher Monckton basically mentions in this lecture about nuclear disarmament, which was to steer us away from peaceful uses of nuclear power. @ 6:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hyl9YzJsQg

ljwheat

7th February 2013, 17:24

"A little radiation is good for mice " another artical on the effects of low radiation.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/346280/description/A_little_radiation_is_good_for_mice

ljwheat

7th February 2013, 17:50

This video is purely infomational to show how tinny a peace of fuel from Russian reator still holds -- high activity still.

ejZyDvtX85Y

ljwheat

11th February 2013, 05:20

I've had my radiation necklace around my neck for a week now and i'm not glowing in the dark yet. lol http://02dde63.netsolstores.com/necklace.aspx

The Grey Stone (Carnotite)

This stone is meant to be used in generally the same way as the green stone, but there is no need to heat this stone. The grey stone does put out a higher level of radiation. This stone is to be used when we want to directly attack a localized area, such as a tumor, liver, pancreas, colon, etc.

Necklace

The stone in this necklace is strong. It is perfect to radiate energy on the chest area. It has been very useful in helping with breast cancer, lung cancer, thyroid problems, and other problems in this vicinity. The necklace is very beneficial for anyone to wear.

And have added the water stone to our distilled drinking water despencer in the frig. http://02dde63.netsolstores.com/waterstone.aspx and can say the water is now at its purfect ph. level Ummm Umm good.

The Water Stone

This stone is very simple to use, rinse stone for 30 seconds then drop in up to 1 gallon of water. Let this sit for at least 8 hours then drink when you are thirsty. It has also been found to do good for house plants and pets. This stone needs no cleaning and will continue to irradiate your water for years (the half life of the radiation is 250,000 years)

When beginning this protocol, it is suggested that you drink one to two glasses a day until your body has adjusted. After this period, drink all your treated water if desired.

Many people ask what type of water to use, the answer is, what ever water you normally drink. If you have clean tap water you can use that.

We also get asked what type of container should they use, plastic, glass, metal? The container material does not change the outcome of the charged water, so use what you personally prefer

Unlike Galen W. who ate his --- i'm waring and drinking radiation on a regular bassis now. The fear of this OP topic is gone and i feel great.

Much love & Hormesis to us all. :grouphug:

:jaw:

LOL -------------- Skeptic :bolt: Believer

ljwheat

11th February 2013, 05:53

Jays Video Blog

Jay Gutierrez Video blog for those looking for alternatives to traditional medicine

http://www.nighthawkminerals.com/jaysvlog.html

All about Hormesis & low level radiation.

Kimberley

11th February 2013, 20:43

John and all I have been waring my necklace for about a week now also and using the mud pack when I sleep and drinking my distilled water that has the water stone in it...

I have an interview scheduled with Jay Gutierrez, founder of Night Hawk Minerals, this Friday. So if you have any questions you would like me to ask him let me know.

Also latest word from M T Keshe's secretary is that Mr Keshe will not be available until the end of March...And I have made it very clear that Mr Keshe watch the Galen lecture so he can speak to Galen's claims when I do a second interview...

Much love!

ljwheat

11th February 2013, 22:39

Actually Kimberley I would like to find out Jay’s take on the Galen Winsor video. If he has seen it or possible send a link to the video for him to watch, so you can ask Jay about it in your interview may be he has insights that will add to this legacy of deception in the nuclear industry.

Oh, the other day I was bending over cleaning out the cat box and felt and heard my lower back pop out. So thought about the necklace around my neck and took it off the lanyard and taped it to the small of my back a day after suffering all that pain. Guess what? ---- LOL rocks do have powers, -- in less than a couple hours the pain was gone. The distilled water I make my self now tastes really good now with the stone in it. “Dam” now I want to go swimming in a reactor cooling pool like Galen mentioned in one of two interviews I don’t remember witch one he said it in but I feel so energized now, been getting great full night sleep lately too.

Cant wait to hear your interview with Jay, How much more have we been missing because of all this media radiation scam and scare tactics they have put us threw over the last 50 years or more.

At least we are fighting back with this thread and getting out the truth -- I just wish there was some way to get a bigger global audience coverage on this --- what about getting Ike on to this some how or Alex Jones they’ve got a big following? I don’t know I’m just thinking out lowed, there has to be some way of spreading this good new -- all of it. The deeper we look the bigger this is getting. A little help from Bill and Carrie wouldn’t hurt either. The moderator Dawn is pretty savvy on this topic too. Thanks Kimberley much love and deep respect as usual. John xoxo :grouphug:

gripreaper

11th February 2013, 23:27

I have an interview scheduled with Jay Gutierrez, founder of Night Hawk Minerals, this Friday. So if you have any questions you would like me to ask him let me know. Much love!

Is Knight Hawk Minerals familiar with Dr Schuessler cell salts, and do they extract using the biochemic method to get 6X homeopathic dosage?

http://www.doctoryourself.com/cell_salts.html

[edit] I think I answered my own question, in that he doesn't carry the 12 essential cell salts.

ljwheat

11th February 2013, 23:33

Just Bumping along.:bump:

Kimberley

13th February 2013, 02:00

I am a bit frustrated that there seems to be few following this thread..however I need to accept it to be what it is...

That said as I stated I am doing an interview with Jay Gutierrez this Friday. I contacted Jay with John's wise request and here is the correspondence... I love it!!!!

********************************************
Jay,

A friend of mine gave me a good suggestion and that was for me to ask you to take a look at as part of our interview this video because my listeners and I would very much like to get your view on this information "The Nuclear Power Scam lecture by Galen Winsor"

ejCQrOTE-XA it is an hour and a half lecture from 1986 just prior to the chernobyl incident.

Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.

Galen Winsor traveled and lectured all over America, spoke on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people ... so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world's most valuable power resource. Filmed by Ben Williams in 1986.

Galen passed on several years ago at the age of 85. I personally interviewed Ben Williams, the gentleman that filmed this lecture, as to verify the authenticity of Galen Windsor. If you would like to listen to that interview please do let me know.

I realize that this is a last minute request and if you are not able to view this before Friday I understand and we can do a follow up when you do have a chance to view this lecture.

Thank you Much love

Kimberley
*********************

Hi Kimberley!
Are you kidding me? I could probably be this guys son!

I definitely can contribute immensely to his work. Our stories working with uranium are so similar. Actually, it goes even way deeper on what we have found to be the TRUTH, and were able to verify it. This is the first time I have seen this clip, but I am blown away!

I know exactly what he is talking about and can expand on this with many, many stories. We ARE hands on and have been for years with much success. I want to explain something to you Kimberley that you will not find anywhere else.

Out of this ghost town we live in, we have had the honor of getting the attention and working with some of the world's best doctors and scientist. After years of working with people hands on, it was harder and harder to match up the miracles we were witnessing with their THEORY of "radiation hormesis", although it was the only thing we had to justify the work we were doing.

Through chains of events, which I can assure you that what we do is heavily divinely guided, I was able to validate that it never was the radiation that was getting our people better, but it was the FREQUENCIES that stones were emitting.

We first did this by restructuring waters and watch the stones adjust the ph in different waters. Then we applied the material we work with using the approach of frequencies and were able to obtain the results we expected every time.

We have watched it destroy cancer. Now, we knew that we were working with frequencies, but this is where it gets almost scary exciting.

My doctors and I went back over the years and examined all the things we had worked with using the stones and realized that no matter what scenario we put the naturally radioactive stones in, whether we were working with animals, plants, bees, waters, health, they ALWAYS did the right thing, ALWAYS made the right move, and ALWAYS overpowered the bad frequencies.

Here we have discovered a frequency that actually knows how to make the right decision for life every time! Supposedly impossible.

My Doc's and I agree that there is only one thing that can do that. Our Creator. God Bless.

Jay

Kimberley

13th February 2013, 02:39

Will be doing my interview with JAY this Friday feb 15...Just talked with him just now and you are going to really like hearing where we will go...!!!!

I am so thrilled to be doing this interview
!!!

much love!!!

Journeyon

13th February 2013, 03:29

Kimberly, thank you for this info. I look forward to hearing your interview.
Blessings,
Journeyon

AlaBil

13th February 2013, 03:52

scanner

13th February 2013, 08:39

Thank you Kimberly , I follow most of what I post through the email reporting system . It's difficult to keep up sometimes I have so much going on . I know it probably looks like I don't look in as often as I should , but I do keep abreast of all the info I poss can . Thanks again for keeping this important post alive .

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 13:56

Jay Gutierrez

I definitely can contribute immensely to his work. Our stories working with uranium are so similar. Actually, it goes even way deeper on what we have found to be the TRUTH, and were able to verify it. This is the first time I have seen this clip, but I am blown away!

Posted by Kimberley (here)
I am a bit frustrated that there seems to be few following this thread..however I need to accept it to be what it is...

Kimberley, I believe we have the smoking gun as evidence now with your interviews lined up all in a row and now with Jay present day documented practice and hands on proof that natural radiation is the highest best kept secret in our world today.

The veil of fear that has virtually berried the truth under tons of misinformation is mind boggling. All attempts to bring “ The truth will set you free “ in a world based on fear is our challenge.

I would at this point suggest a New Opening Thread -- with all the evidence we’ve collected on radiation. Listing all the interviews in the lead OP starting with the most recent and ending with Galen’s Video.

The title of the thread should be well thought out to match the content, a hook as it were to spark interest but yet get past the fear that’s present even on Avalon Forum. This package should be presented as the shocking bomb shell it is and has become over the last year of building it.

Its all about presentation and wording, a fresh new thread in general dissection using this OP as an archive of information as reference.

The trail has gone cold as we all have witnessed as it has ran its course. Looking for suggestions on the opening OP are welcome, we have a collection of brilliant minds on this forum any recommendations on who might be our best rep on this ?

Much love to us all :grouphug: :bump: or PM any one you know on Avalon who may be of help on this. thanks John

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 17:13

Radiation Hormesis Explained by Jay Gutierrez - RadiationHormesis.com - Part 1

CFtXoH0WFQo

pVJfmL4NBlQ

CoOLuX5vD-k

JyHylhu2yCo

Kimberley

13th February 2013, 17:21

Thank you fellow Nuclear Scamers :-)

I agree with your idea John. I will ponder a good subject title. I have a few thought...

Much love to us all!! :grouphug:

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 17:26

lpf3dXQNh04

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 18:24

X3A14NYPeTQ

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 18:37

bhymoa9R648

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 18:47

z1Yx-CpYrM0

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 18:59

iOcxPQhwXb0

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 19:26

6CEspFZLZtE

I would say that if any one should deserve the next Nobel Peace prize on contributions to the human condition Jay should be it's recipient bar none. And his work and discovery with these stones.

Much love and Hormesis to us all :grouphug:

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 20:58

G2JIE2ZgPO0

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 21:25

Also finding out that cancer is miss labeled -- its just >fungus<

UeZWSyHkY3A

This video blew me away on how disinformation is rampant in our society. Really realy important information.

Also finding out that cancer is miss labeled -- its just >fungus<

Bill Ryan needs to see this.!!!!!! Paradigm changing information.

:grouphug::bump:

ljwheat

13th February 2013, 22:19

Coming full circle back to OP listening to Galen after listening to these last few testimonials brings it all together and really validate everything Galen points out about us getting only the pasteurized version of a very well kept secret.

x42qi7Fz1L0

:flame:Its now in our face, what do we do with all this now.:flame:

:cell:Some one you love, on this.

ljwheat

16th February 2013, 03:38

At about 26;58 in this video is really remarkable-- the fact that there is now safety radiation protection equipment, working with bare hands day in day out buckets of raw ore laying around -- yet their fingers are not falling off, or anything the regulatory commission is so dam worried about and how many years have these guys been going down a hole and bringing all this raw material back to a shop full of radioactive material---- hot rocks? I guess Galen was right on the mark after all. one big scam.

lpf3dXQNh04

No one can deny the visual evidence in this video, Galen’s testimony and this hands on video, eye witness testimony on what low level radiation can do for the world. When are people going to wake up, and take this world back from the scammer’s?

ljwheat

19th February 2013, 11:49

You know after watching Jay and his crew working with all these “HOT Rocks” day in and day out. Wear is the lab badges? And if they did wear them when would they potentially have to stop in there tracks when the Government controlled badges go off.

And Galen if He had to wear one of these idiot badges at what point would he have had to stay home and not present any more radiation seminars?

Its beginning to look like its Safe as long as the Government not involved in any way. Hmmmmm what else is safe we don’t know about, for some ridiculous reason they don’t want any of us to find out the benefits to the human race? :shocked:

ljwheat

19th February 2013, 12:04

:ranger:
Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses are Good for You
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html

Along with the EPA and NRC, elected government officials, newspaper science writers, TV reporters and journalists, and, consequently, most Americans believe that low doses of radiation are harmful. People have "radiophobia" — the fear that any level of ionizing radiation, no matter how small, is dangerous. Why? For one thing, the news media fosters it because fear sells. Scary stories about the dangers of radiation keep people tuned in. Another reason, which lies deeper in the collective psyche, is that this phobia expresses the deep-seated sense of revulsion that Americans feel over the devastation and loss of life caused by the atomic bombs that its country dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. A third, more correctable reason is that the relationship between radiation dose and its biological effects is believed to conform to the "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis," or "model." Regulators use this model to predict the number of cancer deaths that low doses of radiation are assumed to cause and then cite these predictions to justify their draconian radiation safety standards.

Scary Story's Sell ? Hmmmmmmm ?????

ljwheat

19th February 2013, 12:14

The first Radon Spa in The World
06.11.2003 Author: COT

The town of J�chymov lies on the southern slopes of the Ore mountains at 650 meters above sea level. The first radon spa here was founded in 1906, thanks to the unique natural healing source, radon water. Mighty underground springs gush forth from a depth of 500 meters and pipes convey the mineral water to individual spas.

In L��ebn� L�zn� J�chymov a.s. they treat all illnesses of the motor apparatus, inflammations and degenerative states, states after injury and orthopedic operations, diseases of the peripheric nervous system, metabolic illnesses, osteoporosis and Morbus-Becht�rev disease. Counter indication therapies are for active tumors, acute infections, acute TBC, severe heart weakness, and acute and subacute mental illnesses.

Besides radon therapy, which has a distinctive medicinal effect, the treatment program incorporates physical therapy, rehabilitation and bath therapy. One of the specialities of the J�chymov spa is a procedure known as Brachyradiuterapie (also known as the J�chymov boxes) which is offered in very severe individual cases.

Client accommodation is offered in three spa complex buildings: Radium Palace, Ak.B�hounek and Curie, which are above standardly equipped and offer clients every convenience. The spa houses Praha, Astoria and Elektra underwent reconstruction in the last few years and their furnishings are also above standard. Only for procedures and board do clients have to leave except hotel Praha. Furthermore, accommodation in more modest conditions can be found in the dependence of Dalibor, Jit�enka, Lu�ice, Dagmar and D��enka.

L��ebn� l�zn� J�chymov, a.s.
tel.: +420 353 811 208, +420 353 811 705
fax: +420 353 811 730
e-mail: obchodni@laznejachymov.cz
www.laznejachymov.cz

ljwheat

19th February 2013, 12:25

FREE ENERGY PARTY

Chemist Drops Bomb on Radiation / http://freeenergyparty.net/chemist_drops_bomb_on_radiation

You take a position regarding nuclear energy (and nuclear waste) that would surprise many people. You contend that scientific evidence refutes the popular perception that radiation is harmul. Please explain.
Robinson
People are afraid of low-level radiation, thinking it is harmful, but actually the reverse is true.
During the debate over nuclear weapons in the 1960s, those who were trying to disarm the United States argued that the radiation from bomb tests was causing vast amounts of cancer and damaging people all over the world.

ljwheat

19th February 2013, 12:32

Radon – A Brief Discussion

Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist / http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html

Throughout the entire Earth, the naturally occurring element uranium is found in at least trace amounts. This element is naturally radioactive and with time, the uranium decays into several other elements (called "daughters"), one at a time. Each time a transformation into a new element takes place, the atom is said to undergo "decay". During each decay, energy is released from the atom. The released energy is collectively given the term "ionizing radiation" and the atom is said to exhibit "radioactivity". The list of subsequent daughter products is known as the “decay chain.”

Along this decay chain, one of the elements that is produced is the naturally occurring material called radon. Radon is unique from the other uranium decay products because it is a gas and as a gas, it is capable of migrating from the location of the original uranium atom into the surrounding soil gas. Worldwide, an average of about two radon atoms are emitted from every square centimeter of soil everywhere on the Earth every second of every day1. It is for that reason that virtually every house on the planet always has had radon, and will always have radon occurring in the home. Humans have been breathing radon gas since the dawn of Man.

ljwheat

19th February 2013, 20:46

Dr. OZ on TV and his web page is showing allot of wellness issues conventional and holistic. So I was thinking what a way to send this thread over the top, in that we could lead with Jay’s story and His Bee’s discovery and testimony and then use Galen Winsor; to back up the legitimacy of the scam or cover up on anything radiation.

Get it on nationwide TV would really be great -- but his producers or network may not allow it. But the web site and his blog. And his credibility out here in the masses may help get this over the top, I think its worth a try as He’s all ways looking for new and provocative or alterative stories for his show and web site and Leading with the discovery of the Bee’s is so big a story and provable. That he would listen to, and open the door for the rest of this thread.

Kimberly: being a representative of the press an interview with oz on your radio talk show may be the ticket?

http://www.doctoroz.com/ contact us or the press button at the bottom of the page.

The story of the Bee's http://www.nighthawkminerals.com/savingthebee.html

ljwheat

20th February 2013, 16:41

ljwheat

20th February 2013, 20:05

This thread of Dawn’s go’s back to 25 Dec, 2012 on Hormesis - healing. And thought I would bring it forward into this thread since its on Radiation and what Dawn has researched as a way of bumping this thread along too.

Check it out here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation&p=605973&viewfull=1#post605973

Much love to us all :grouphug:

Kimberley

20th February 2013, 20:34

Thank you John very much for all of your research !!! :hug:

I am still working on my interview with Jay Gutierz...hopeful to have it posted in a day or two...

Much love!!!

Kimberley

1st March 2013, 15:52

I am still waiting for nuclear physicist M T Keshe to review Galen Winsor's lecture. Mr Keshe agreed to do so and at this point I have been told that he will reply to me at the end of March.

So, I am pleased to announce that my, February 15th 2013, interview with Jay Gutierrz about Radiation Hormesis is completed!

Here it is on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxCLpA3JDQQ

There is a great thread here on Avalon with more Radiation Hormesis information:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation

*************************************************************************************

If you would like to download an mp3 file of the interview I loaded it onto sendspace...this link is not permanent (so if someone finds this after it expires feel free to PM me and I will re-load it)

Be sure to ONLY click on the blue box with the words "Click here to start download from sendspace" in it. Do not click any other download buttons or play now buttons. And then save the file to your computer.

Description: Jay Guitierz Use the following link to retrieve your file: http://www.sendspace.com/file/0hrtow

************************************************************************************

TargeT

1st March 2013, 17:22

Just wanted to post a surprising update to using the hot necklace and water stone. From Jay’s web site 2 ½ weeks now, the biggest noticeable change is that unexpected result has been after 50+ years of suffering from dandruff and skin sores, I am thrilled to say they are completely gone, also I was listening to one of the interviews and I think it was the pilot that spoke of his sight getting better, and this I can vouch for as well - he mention a palup or something in his neck that was giving him trouble in swallowing and speech over the years going away, when I heard that I reached up to my throat as I too had a enlarged growth in my neck that they did an ultra sound on a few years ago and said was nothing - have had that for years -- and Now? It went from the size of a quarter down to the size of a pea and almost gone now.

So am really excited with using my hot rocks / low level radiation. In under 3 weeks totally cool. Soon I will be able to walk around at night with out a flash light. LOL :cool:

Amazing results!

I need to get a PO box so I can order some for myself :)

ljwheat

4th March 2013, 17:03

I'm with you one this as well Kimberly, I don't understand the lack or activity on a thread that has blown the cover off one of the biggest lies of our century namely Radiation, let alone finding out that just the opposite is true, and saving lives on a daily basis.

And the wording is what's blowing me away. “Billions spent on Cancer research” if people would just change the verbiage to – “Fungus Research” – People would see the the idiocy of the word “Cancer” and why they are calling a fungus Cancer – every one on this planet knows how to get rid of a fungus.

Add the word “Cancer” with out letting people know its just a fungus is criminal nondisclosure, of something that any one can understand and do something about.

A movement on getting rid of the use of this miss leading word, would save allot of people from dieing from applied ignorance by the medical field, making a killing on the worlds ignorance they put us under.

I honor your dedication an diligence in keeping all of us abreast of this on going struggle to right the many wrongs the greedy have implemented on our global population.

And since we are in the time line of the Apocalypse (all will be revealed) its a great beginning at chipping away at the mountain of Lie's before us all, thank you so much Kimberly you continue to make a mark on many lives – and I am just one of them.

Much love, John

Kimberley

4th March 2013, 21:05

Much love to you John and to us all!! :hug:

TargeT

5th March 2013, 01:17

excellent post John, I complete agree with all points and will be using this knowledge to benefit my self and my family.

RADIATION IS GOOD FOR YOU! (at appropriate levels, just like asprin, water, oxygen or anything else that we NEED to live)

this IS one of the biggest lies I can think of, it stops us from "easy" (free?) energy, and health, what else is society truely concerned with? Energy covers SO MUCH, and with out health why even worry about energy.......

Some day soon these truths will be seen by the masses and I will rejoice, for now I will bennifit from my knowledge as much as possible and spread it to who ever is willing to listen.

genevieve

11th March 2013, 01:38

I'm just getting into this and am fascinated and enheartened.

Thanks, Kimberly and everyone!

Time for a bump!

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
Genevieve

ljwheat

11th March 2013, 03:17

ljwheat

14th March 2013, 13:42

TZeDCqaQW_w

Kimberley

15th March 2013, 23:05

found a report on chernobyl by galen winsor on http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/Williams1986.htm

I haven't listened to it yet thought I would post it first

scroll down the page 3rd from the bottom till you see

8618a (http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/8618a.mp3) Report On Chernobyl by Galen Winsor (05/11/86)

I just listened to this again almost 9 months since I listened to it the first time... this is HUGE when I listened the first time it was huge then however listening to it again after all we have gleaned I am recommending all to listen again and or listen for the first time... If you did not listen to it. It takes a few minutes for it to load so be patient...

Kimberley

16th March 2013, 00:45

Did I ever post this?

Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/07/16/156851175/five-men-agree-to-stand-directly-under-an-exploding-nuclear-bomb?ft=1&f=1001

ljwheat

16th March 2013, 01:16

I did a couple months ago, at http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-&p=536246&viewfull=1#post536246 on this thread. :-)

Page #9

TargeT

28th May 2013, 16:45

Found another good book on the topic:

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear

The human race is in a dilemma; it is threatened by economic instability on one hand and climate change on the other. Either of these could lead to widespread unrest and political turmoil, if the right choices are not made now. In particular, prosperity without carbon emission implies a comprehensive switch in our sources of energy. With luck, the activity generated by the process of switching will also contribute to prosperity in the short and medium term. There are many solutions wind, tidal, solar, improved efficiency but the most powerful and reliable source is nuclear. However, it is widely supposed that this presents a major problem of safety. Is this long-held concern about radiation and nuclear technology fully justified? Straightforward questions should have simple answers, and the simplest answer is No. Explaining and exploring the question and this answer in accessible terms is the subject of this book.
Show more
Show less

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0956275613/ref=s9_simh_co_p14_d26_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-3&pf_rd_r=12EP7A9Z7SC5QR7PMNDN&pf_rd_t=3201&pf_rd_p=1280661842&pf_rd_i=typ01

Kimberley

28th May 2013, 19:10

Thank you Target !! Great find!!

Those following this thread plz do go to the amazon link Target posted and read the reviews and comments...

There are several video lectures with Wade Allison on youtube such as these below.

pBhaQuKSpaY

LDIENaOo-Bw

ljwheat

29th May 2013, 00:09

Yes great find indeed, according to the energy commission levels of radiation hanging around my neck for the last 6 month should have burn me to a crispy critter and everyone in this house hold after the first week of warring radioactive ore around my neck.

This entire thread has proven beyond the manufactured fear in our society and world as a hole, that we have been lied to by very high ranking officials for only one purpose, to keep us under the monetary slavery of dirty energy.

Electrical energy is fare more dangerous to the human condition, where all along nuclear is free, and good for you and natural. The only danger is to corporate back pockets, if this truth ever comes out. Free energy for everyone and safe -------- with health benefits hidden from the world.

I totally bought into this fear of radiation, I wish; with all my heart, I knew what caused the light bulb in my head to come on. After the years of lies and my own fears built a mental barrier so strong, I became a soldier in there corner, pushing the fear as I feed it to myself at the same time.

And now according to the NEA I’m among the walking dead with this radiation hanging around my neck and drinking radiant charged water. But here I stand a total contradiction to all there lies and brain washing.

If radiation causes thyroid cancer, then my neck should be the size of a basket ball by now. From exposure to levels of radiation hundreds of, if not thousands of times higher than anything coming out of Fucushima, or Russia, and 3 mile island put together. Thanks TargeT for this gem of information. So am bumping this along, and hope more find there way to this thread of liberating solid fact, destroying the many lies of the past fostered on us all.

Much love to all who find this thread, let it be written, let it be so. There words, but its our freedom that’s at stake.

May the Fourth be with us.. LOL and may the fifth detentions sing forever. “age of Aquarius”

Kimberley

8th July 2013, 00:40

World’s first floating nuclear power plant to begin operating in Russia in 2016

Published time: July 07, 2013 20:43

In three years, Russia will have the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, capable of providing energy and heat to hard-to-get areas as well as drinking water to arid regions.

Full article and drawings found at this link...

http://rt.com/news/floating-nuclear-plant-russia-759/

TargeT

2nd August 2013, 01:28

Ran into this study, pretty interesting; I had heard it mentioned before on TV.

This example of exposure was one of the biggest examples ever recorded of what happens when these small dose exposures happen:

An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan.
Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life:
5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180
buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They
unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv—a
“collective dose” of 4,000 person-Sv.
Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer
mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per
100,000 person-years. Three children were born with congenital
heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per
1,000 children under age 19.
The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general
population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per
100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and
hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital
malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and
income distributions of these persons are the same as for the
general population, it appears that significant beneficial health
effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

Kimberley

4th August 2013, 23:27

TargeT

5th August 2013, 03:06

Target...yes I am 99% sure that this got posted on this thread somewhere, because I remember this...

Still wish everyone would watch the opening post and follow through this thread for all of the supporting evidence that has been gathered about the Nuclear Power Scam...

It sure took me way deeper down the rabbit hole...in a good way...one less thing to fear. And if I am wrong so what..When it is our time it is our time...

:grouphug:

it was mentioned in a fox youtube clip, an interview with Ann Coulter; earlier in this thread, I had just not ever taken the time to look up what she referenced (you see it in the link above).

FXFUUGeV1DI

Kimberley

5th August 2013, 04:13

TargeT

5th August 2013, 15:07

So funny I had a run in with a friend that is here on avalon ( although not so much any more) and she is a facebook friend and e-mail and phone friend also...

Any way she can not wrap herself around any of this...nuclear is bad bad bad..... geez I used to believe that also... I get it...

Please do your own research and/or look at all the research in this tread...

Much love to us all!!! :grouphug:

Something that has as powerful of a zeitgeist as "all/any nuclear radiation is bad" is very hard to get someone who's mind is set to even consider an alternate view point (which is really too bad).

the first 15 min of "Athene's Theory of Everything" really explains how we have a physiological response to challenges of strongly held beliefs.

dbh5l0b2-0o

this really helps one to understand why things "stay the same" so often when they are a strongly held belief.

778 neighbour of some guy

21st August 2013, 22:31

Bump for the OP and the Galen videos, go see them if you haven't seen them yet.

David Hughes

18th September 2013, 09:41

I recall watching a documentary about radiation exposure on the BBC back in 2006 and being pretty amazed by the conclusions they arrived at. I can’t find the documentary anywhere on youtube or google video’s but did find it here:

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v141864872...ear+Nightmares

It’s only 50 minutes long and well worth watching, but for those of you short on time I’ll summarize its content.

In the 1920’s and 30’s, devices were sold that increased our exposure to radiation. One popular device was called a Radon Emanator which added radiation to drinking water. Radiation was in vogue. The word ‘Radium’ symbolized quality, todays equivalent of gold or platinum. ‘Radium Condoms’ , ‘Radium Cigarettes’ and ‘Radium Shoe Polish’ were examples of popular brands.

Scientists working with radiation began to suspect that it may have carcinogenic effects and this was confirmed after America dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Around 200,000 people died almost immediately in the initial blast. Thousands more survived but they had been exposed to higher levels of radiation than anyone ever had before. What happened these people? Was there a subsequent epidemic of cancers?

People within various zones of exposure were studied. Those up to 1000 meters away from ground zero, where the bomb hit, would have received an estimated 2000mSv (millisieverts - the standard measure of radiation dose). 2000mSv is the equivalent dose of 20,000 chest X-Ray’s. 5000 meters out from ground zero the dose lowers to 5mSv (50 chest X-Rays).

In 1958, using data largely drawn from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first study quantifying the relationship between radiation dose and cancer was published. The "Linear No-Threshold" (LNT) dose model that was formulated from the studies has been used ever since. It concludes that the higher the dose, the higher the risk of cancer. Exposure of up to 2000mSv increased the risk of cancer by about 10%. At 500mSv, the increased risk is about 3%. Nobody knew what was going on at doses lower than 200mSv. Scientists made the assumption that the trend continued all the way down to zero – ie zero exposure, zero increased risk. Or put another way, all radiation is dangerous and to be feared.

Any nuclear accidents were pounced on by the media and fear spread. In 1979 came Americas worst nuclear accident on 3 Mile Island, shaking their confidence in nuclear power, although there was no significant release of radiation. Then came Chernobyl and public fear escalated to an all time high. This was the second major radiation exposure event that scientists had the opportunity to study. Predicted deaths were based on the LNT model, even though most people received doses towards the unreliable bottom end of the graph.

200,000 workers were drafted to help clean up the mess in Chernobyl. They were exposed to about 500mSv. According to the LNT model, projected deaths were calculated to be around 2,200. Further out around the reactor, about 400,000 people got an average exposure dose of 25 mSv, predicting another 1,800 deaths. Further away in Kiev where about 5 million people live, the dose drops down to about 10mSv, another 5000 deaths, predicting a total of around 9,000 deaths according to the LNT dose model.

As of 2 decades later the reality was very different. In 2005 a report conducted by The Chernobyl Forum was released (made up of 9 UN organizations and the Belarus, Russian and Ukrainian governments). Of the 200,000 workers exposed to the highest doses, there was a total of 47 deaths. Among the small dose exposure group, the forum have only found 1 group where cancers have significantly increased due to radiation exposure– childhood thyroid cancer. 9 children have died from this. That is it according to the Chernobyl Forum. A total of 56 deaths which can be directly attributed to radiation exposure. There may be more but there are so few that they are statistically undetectable. 56 deaths is less than the amount of people who die on Britains roads every week. These numbers are hundreds of times lower than those predicted by the LNT model. Could it be that radiation is not as dangerous as we think?

Background radiation is everywhere on the planet, the average dose being 2.5 mSv / year. There are many places on Earth where the natural background radiation is tens or even hundreds of times higher than in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, yet no radiation attributed increase in cancers can be found. Data suggests the opposite may be the case.

Studies have been performed on cells taken from animals exposed to radiation in the Chernobyl region. They show that genes thought to have a strong role in cancer prevention have been switched on in animals exposed to the radiation. The studies suggest that low level radiation may be beneficial or harmless at the very least.

Radiophobia may provide the biggest threat to our health.

I posted the above over a year ago and completely forgot about this thread. Just catching up yesterday and today and I see that the general consensus is that low dose radiation is beneficial or benign at the very least as was theorized in that documentary.

I notice that the exclusion zone around Fukishima extends to 2km.

This article details the radiation levels within and around the Fukishima exclusion zone and what they mean.

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/08/how-dangerous-is-the-fukushima-exclusion-zone/

"In general, most of the several dozen readings come in at the 1 to 10 mSv/yr range, though with the highest of all (at Namie town, 24km north-west of the stricken reactors) at 289 mSv/yr."

"On a global average we are all exposed to 2.4 mSv/yr of background radiation in the environment (though this varies geographically by an order of magnitude or more mainly depending on local geology), so for most of the exclusion zone around Fukushima, levels of radioactivity are only a few times higher than would naturally be expected. Even the Namie town readings are not unprecedented – in Ramsar, Iran, naturally-occurring radon in the surrounding areas leads to exposures as high as 250 mSv/yr for the local population, without any reported health effects."

TargeT

18th September 2013, 13:17

Radiophobia indeed.

great post, the summary was very interesting and seems to line up with what we have discussed here; however it also suggests that no real study was ever done on radiation levels only guesses based on exposure due to accident, and even then the numbers are very close to error margin levels...

we see more and more threads on this very forum that spread the radiophobia; it's unfortunate.

Have you seen the radiation Hormesis thread?

Kimberley

18th September 2013, 17:15

Thank you David! :hug:

David Hughes

19th September 2013, 04:51

No worries Kimberley.

The LNT model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

"It assumes that the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the dose. This allows the summation by dosimeters of all radiation exposure, without taking into consideration dose levels or dose rates.[1] In other words, radiation is always considered harmful with no safety threshold, and the sum of several very small exposures are considered to have the same effect as one larger exposure (response linearity)."

It goes on to say: "Whether the model describes the reality for small-dose exposures is disputed. It opposes two competing schools of thought: the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are harmless, and the radiation hormesis model, which claims that radiation at very small doses can be beneficial. Because the current data are inconclusive, scientists disagree on which model should be used."

heyokah

17th December 2013, 10:18

****

Galen Winsor asks – Who owns the plutonium? How much is it worth?

Rod Adams · July 26, 2013

Galen Winsor was a hands-on nuclear expert in the fullest sense of the phrase. Before irrational radiation protection rules were imposed, he and his colleagues directly handled used fuel. Since they needed to touch radioactive materials to accomplish their mission, they could not maximize distance or use shielding. Instead they limited their exposure time and depended on just one out of three of the triple protection means learned by all radiation professionals – “time, distance and shielding”.

According to his story, Winsor and his colleagues knew enough about the material that they were handling to prevent most skin burns, but they had a job to do and did not allow a desire to lower doses below the level of immediate risk to impede their successful accomplishment.

During his more than 30 years of professional involvement in handling nuclear materials, Winsor stubbornly refused to change his habits. He considered the used fuel pool at the Morris, IL recycling plant to be his personal “warm swimming hole”, he gave talks during which he licked uranium dioxide off of the palm of his hand and he once filled a two liter bottle from a used fuel pool and kept that water on his office desk for a daily drink.

If you pay close attention, you should come away with the impression that Winsor was not foolhardy; he was well aware of the real behavior of the materials that he measured. In Winsor’s opinion, imposition of unreasonably tight rules associated with radiation protection has been a cost-increasing strategy akin to the “feather bedding” practices of railroad engineers.

Winsor passed away a few years ago. He was in his 80s and his death was apparently from the normal kinds of natural causes that afflict people of a certain age.

Throughout Winsor’s talk, he points out the physical value of the irradiated material that some people insist on calling high level waste. He asks the final important questions – “Who owns the plutonium?” and “How much is it worth?” He recognizes that using it beneficially threatens a number of powerful interests.

Unfortunately, Winsor’s message did not receive widespread attention in the 1980s when he gave his talks. He did not live in the internet era and did not have access to tools like blogs and YouTube. Fortunately for us, someone saved video tapes of his talks and converted them to a digital format. A couple of days ago, an Atomic Insights reader sent me a link to a longer, 1.5 hour compilation video hosted by Liberty in Our Time. That video has been on the web for a year and has been seen by just 25,000 people; that number needs to grow rapidly.

I would be remise if I did not discuss the idea that Winsor’s message might have gained some detractors from its overly conspiratorial tone. As a Naval Academy graduate and retired Commander, I’m a card carrying member of “The Establishment”. I can testify based on a three decade-long career that there is no need to assume that some kind of secretive agreement must exist in order to encourage people with aligned interests to successfully work without any coordination to discredit a common enemy.

There are plenty of people that have long recognized that atomic energy directly threatens their interests by offering a superior product that can permanently capture profitable customers. Their interest in slowing nuclear energy development has been matched by those who have recognized that it is easier to build enormous infrastructures and obtain valuable contracts when people are confused, fearful or purposely kept ignorant through secrecy.

Unnecessarily stringent radiation protection regulations leads to huge contracts for what we used to call “digging and filling” on the military bases where I worked for several decades. Both construction contractors and hydrocarbon suppliers continue to be aided by media interests that carry their advertising messages, by financial institutions that make money by lending to gargantuan projects, by transportation industries that carry their massive quantities of daily deliveries, and by politicians that accept political contributions (sometimes bordering on bribes), employee votes and post government employment.

The gradual imposition of ever tighter regulations enforced by the kinds of employment threats that Winsor describes in the above video helped to increase profits and also reinforced the public fear factor by building an ever growing body of compliant workers taught to have a questioning attitude that defaulted to extreme conservatism while blindly following stringent rules, even without any physical evidence of harm.

A large and growing body of documents, personal testimony and anecdotal stories has convinced me that the world has wrongly accepted incorrect information about the relative hazard of atomic radiation compared to many other casually accepted materials and influences.
Watching Winsor’s talk reminded me of a practically-minded senior chief petty officer named Tess who once demonstrated to me how he would simply wipe his hands on his pants if he found a little contamination. It reminded me of numerous occasions when Ted Rockwell repeated that money spent on radiation protection did not disappear into a rat hole, it disappeared into some rats’ pockets.

Read more:
http://atomicinsights.com/galen-winsor-asks-who-owns-the-plutonium-how-much-is-it-worth/

Galen Winsor - What stopped plutonium economy?

Galen Winsor describes his hands-on experience with used nuclear fuel and radioactive materials.
He explains how the rules associated with his profession changed during the period from 1947-1982.
He also questions why those rules changed and who benefitted from the changes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VvGw1tkT1Q

(part of the video in the OP post 1#)

scanner

17th December 2013, 10:40

I'd like to thank all who has participated in this post and keeping it alive . Seasons greetings and hope you get what you wish for .

cheers Scanner .

ljwheat

17th December 2013, 14:05

There are a myriad of unfounded out right lie’s that came out in the 50’s, and for what ever the reason. The one that stuck , or should say two that took the world back into the dark ages where if someone with high stature or rank speaks its believed as if I were gospel.

Galen first person hands on in this field of free energy, before the NRC was invented to cover it all up by the Governments of this planet is evident in all that’s been presented and as a on going money monster keeping this lie entrenched in our sheep like society.

The second lie is by fare no less involved with this paper trail of greed and even more sinister using the first lie to bolster each other and frighten the unknowing to there core, to the point of personal taboo’s (Brick Walls) that once built are the hardest to bring down.

And that is the word (cancer) this word is a definition for a myriad of the actual funguses in our environment that is in place to dispose of dead organic materials in nature.

Once you know what fungus is eating you, and there are many, there is always an antidote to counter it. The lie is the name Cancer, you don’t die from the name, you die from the fungus that has taken over the natural balance and running rapid that kills you.

Radiation kills all known fungus on this planet, and can not live or survive in a low dose environment. The simplest truths are covered up by these scammer’s of manufactured lie’s and this is the core of Galen’s video’s, these scammer’s have the ability with there high ranking authority and stature to say and blind the sheeple of this world right out of the common sense we were born with.

And once a taboo or lie is accepted as a truth, it will take on a life of its own, as we can well see in many we have seen frequent this threat. So the debate will rage on over this topic. I for one have immersed myself in hormises and still alive to type these few words of reason. And this is OMHO and knowledge many things yet to discover, like Galen first person by my own hand and thinking, I touch fire it buns me, but its safe with knowledge of its proper use and common sense I believe all that Galen has presented as fact long before the NRC scammer’s came into power.

Daphne

19th December 2013, 00:31

ljwheat

19th December 2013, 01:30

Well I just worked my way entirely through this thread over the last few days. I watched most of the videos and read the articles and I am sold! I am also relieved of a lifelong burden of FEAR that began when I was a child growing up in Boston with a mom who was a passionate activist against the Vietnam war, nuclear energy and the draft. I knew from a young age what 3 minutes til midnight meant and once when I heard a particularly low flying plane I became so traumatized as I was certain that the bomb was about to drop.
Here I am at 51 years old having spent the last year being treated for cancer (or fungus as I now understand) and then being literally piss your pants terrified over Fukushima for the last 4 months or so.
I don't need to feel this way any more!!!! Wow, what a relief....now to research these rocks and how to obtain and use them.

Daphne ,, thank you for voicing up -- then all the hard work and research on this topic many have put there heart and soul into has paid off , I too was totally blown away with Galen’s dedication to getting out the truth about what the world has bought into hook line and sinker. Such a relief it is to be on this side of the politically non correct fence. How many other rabbit hole don’t we know about? Sigh ----

heyokah

19th December 2013, 09:48

Daphne

19th December 2013, 11:23

So many rabbit holes....so little time! Thanks IJwheat for all you have put into this thread to help spread the word.

778 neighbour of some guy

19th December 2013, 13:07

TargeT

19th December 2013, 15:12

"Don't let nuclear fear-mongering cloud your judgement."

"Don't let non-nuclear fear-mongering cloud your judgement."

This asks for a lot of discernment...... and hard scientific fact and even harder answers.....

These two articles have been posted here before.

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html
BUSTED!!!!

"Federal government" BUSTED for forcing American nuclear industry to become a ticking time bomb

Jim Stone, Updated on July 22, 2013

Americans have been told their nuclear waste must go somewhere. Americans have been told their spent reactor fuel needs to be stored inside a mountain in the desert, where it will sit as a threat and menace to the world for millions of years. Americans have been told there is nothing they can do about it. But what if they have been told a lie? What if that "spent fuel" was not spent at all? What if a technology existed which allowed the same fuel to be used over and over, twenty times in fact, and expended so fully that fuel rods would be safe enough to handle directly out of the reactor? Think any "spent fuel pools" would be full? And even if this technology never existed,

What if foreign nations, (France was one) offered to buy this fuel from America for billions of dollars only to have the American Government refuse the offer for no reason at all? Certainly allowing France to have it would solve the problem of getting rid of it. And the final question, WHY would the American Government want so much nuclear material sitting around the country - enough to make countless atomic bombs - only to have it become a threat to America's national security? Could it be that for many years America has not had a legitimate government, and instead has had a band of invaders in power who have intentionally set America up for a fall? After reading this report, I believe you will be inclined to think so.

This report consists of hard scientific fact and even harder answers.

During my journey of discovery in my investigation into the Fukushima disaster, I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked in the nuclear industry during America's glory days, an engineer who earned GE over 100 patents. He was one of the engineers who designed Fukushima, so naturally when conducting an investigation into such a disaster a journalist would want that type of reference. He was surprised when my prior study of reactor systems was so thorough that he had no information about Fukushima I did not already dig up, and he was very surprised when I told him details about the inner workings of his own reactor design he never expected anyone in the media to know.

When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing new, he began to talk about an entirely different subject. He began his new direction in the discussion with the phrase "My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order

Here is what followed that introductory line, and an enormous reason why Americans need to seriously question the current government structure and possibly start over.

"I started in the American nuclear program all the way back at the time of the Manhattan project, and have been involved in reactor design and nuclear engineering my whole life. There was one answer we all searched for, and it was how to close the nuclear loop.
When a reactor such as a boiling water reactor uses fuel, the waste products, which are highly radioactive isotopes that have a different fission characteristic than the original fuel, build up in the fuel and change the nature of the nuclear reaction. A reactor such as a boiling water reactor can only use the fuel until it gets contaminated by these isotopes enough to change the nature of the nuclear reactions taking place. The reaction environment inside a boiling water reactor is only one such environment which will work to trigger a chain reaction, and if that spent fuel is put into a reactor made from different materials, those materials can favor the burning of the isotopes which interfere with the chain reactions in the boiling water reactor and use these interfering isotopes as fuel until they are consumed. After this process, which restores the fuel to it's original state is complete, the fuel can go back into the boiling water reactor and used as new with no reprocessing - the exact same rods can be exchanged between reactors.

We perfected the second reactor design which used liquid sodium as a coolant and the reactor ran much hotter - 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor instead of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which produced steam outside the reactor for use in producing electricity. The temperature difference and coolant characteristics in the complimentary reactor facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction - the boiling water reactor produced electricity while producing unwanted isotopes, and the sodium cooled reactor produced electricity while burning the unwanted isotopes out. This process could be repeated 20 times, and when it was finished the fuel was DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it's radiological potential was used up. It was a clean energy dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!"

He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all, and after I questioned him about exactly how safe, said you could safely sleep on it. I questioned him several times, saying he must be exaggerating, but he said ALL radiological potential was used, and the fuel was completely inert at the end of the final cycle.

Many people know about the liquid sodium breeder reactor developed by General Electric in the late 1970's but few people know the real story about this reactor, which this engineer developed. To back stab the public image of this reactor, it was stated that it's rods would stick and that liquid sodium was too dangerous to use as a coolant. But this engineer, the man who developed it, stated that this media campaign was a pure psy op which like many things the media and government says had no truth to it at all.

He then went on to lament about what a waste of money it was to have the technology banned because nuclear fuel is expensive and they were only able to use it to about five percent of its total potential without implementing this technology. He lamented the fact that his life's greatest accomplishment got banned for no good reason, and it was a tremendous waste of money to not use the technology his team developed. Electricity would have been cheap. So cheap that homes would not have been heated with oil or natural gas, electricity would have been the only sensible choice. Furthermore, with a reduction in the price of electricity by at least 10X, electric cars would have quickly become a standard.

This would have been America's free energy future, with the only real cost being maintenance of infrastructure.

He was sad that we were now paying too much for electricity. I guess that's how an engineer thinks. He had read my article about Fukushima and liked it, so it is an easy guess that his eyes were open to the global conspiracy. But I think he missed the obvious in what he said.

Here is what I think about this technology being banned, and it has nothing to do with preservation of resources or free energy.

Nuclear reactors are huge. They have an enormous amount of nuclear material in them. One boiling water reactor core the size of the ones at Fukushima, which have a thermal potential of three gigawatts and an electrical generating capacity of one gigawatt can easily hold enough fissionable material to make many atomic bombs. And with the technology that makes re-using that fuel illegal, it builds up in the cooling pools at a rate of 25 tons per electrical gigawatt YEAR. This means that after 40 years of fuel buildup even small 500 megawatt facilities have approximately a million pounds of highly radioactive fuel sitting in their pools waiting for the right combination of problems to cause a disaster.
Because the Japanese were at least allowed by their government to use a reprocessing technology inferior to what this engineer spoke of, Fukushima only had approximately 250,000 pounds of "spent" fuel at each reactor site, which remained intact throughout the disaster. But because in America no reprocessing is allowed at all in any form, the fukushima equivalents in America, such as TVA operated Browns Ferry and NSP operated Prairie Island have no fewer than two million pounds of "spent" fuel at each reactor site, which means that Browns Ferry alone could, in a worst case scenario, far exceed the damage done by Fukushima.

Contrary to what the scamming mainstream press has reported, Fukushima reactor 3 was destroyed entirely while at 3,000 PSI (far beyond specifications) which resulted in a complete core expulsion. This threw approximately 100,000 pounds of fuel into the environment, much of it in the form of brown dust that badly contaminated the entire surrounding area and was found around the world. Seldom reported in the press is the fact that the Fukushima site was so badly contaminated that it could not be approached, and remote control and robots were used in the months following the disaster to get the radiation down to a survivable level after the first three people to explore the site died. At 100,000 pounds of expelled material, reactor 3 could have produced at most 2 percent of the total contamination possible from a large American nuclear facility. This puts the possible disaster from Browns ferry at 50 to 100 times worse than Fukushima. Multiply that by Prairie Island and the over 100 other similar sized nuclear facilities in America and it is not hard to calculate that a serious national security threat exists.

America's nuclear waste problem was intentionally created

When GE and others designed the nuclear facilities both in America and abroad, they had calculated that they would indeed succeed in closing the nuclear loop. So they designed the nuclear facilities with an approximate 20X safety margin in the fuel pools, because they did not have a clear date on when the technology would be perfected. It was my impression from this engineer that they got it sooner than expected. So fortunately the fuel pools were over built, but despite being over built they were never designed to withstand the fuel burdens that would result from a political decision to destroy the closed loop fuel cycle technology altogether.
So now, 40 years after the ban, America has fuel pools around the country that are so full that they have exceeded even the extremely generous safety margins they were originally designed to have, and even modest pools often have over 400 tons of highly active isotope ridden "spent" fuel in them.

Having functional fuel pool cooling systems was never intended to be necessary. GE and others wanted only a fractional core of fuel sitting in a pool at any one time, with at most one or two entire cores, not 15 or 20. If all cooling systems failed with only the intended maximum of one or two cores sitting in a pool there would be no boiling of the water in the pool, no pending disaster possible from equipment failure no matter how severe. But the way it is now, if there is any sort of attack or disaster which prevents fuel pool maintenance at any of the facilities in America for a period exceeding three days, the water will boil off, the fuel will catch fire and a nuclear disaster of unimaginable magnitude far in excess of Fukushima will take place. And it never needed to be this way, in fact, the situation is criminal.

Foreign nations offered help, but the American government said NO

Upon recognizing the lunacy of America's Federally mandated nuclear sabotage, countries like France and Germany offered to buy America's 5% spent fuel for billions of dollars. They were not held political hostage by a hostile government, and could certainly use a source of cheap fuel. But rather than accept this offer,the American government mandated NO transport of the fuel to foreign nations, no further use whatsoever. American nuclear facilities were forced by Federal regulation to use approximately 5 percent of the fuel's radiological potential, leaving 95 percent of the radiological hazard remaining, and subsequently forced to keep it in a fuel pool that needs continuous maintenance. While arguing against this report, shills have said it was the import/export restrictions which caused such a dangerous situation in America, but since those laws were written by the same government that banned the closing of the "nuclear loop", the export restrictions are only a further indictment of the FED for causing this problem.
Simultaneous with the intentional building of the threat from having so much nuclear material sitting around came all the government scandals and lies about needing to put the fuel somewhere. Inside a mountain in the desert. Inside a dry cask. Maybe in the ocean, all the while the general American public was kept oblivious to the obvious answer: If they were not allowed to use it because of a nonsensical piece of legislation, why not let someone else have it, when other nations are willing to even pay for it?

Here is what I believe is the answer. And this answer needs to be spread far and wide.

Whatever you think of Kennedy, on the day of his death he was America's last hope. No President since has been anything other than a puppet for an enemy infiltrator, The enemy is not only inside the gates, it has been taking a paycheck from the American people for over 45 years.
Consider this: America's government intentionally put in place policies that de-industrialized America. That's an act of war. The American government put in place policies that intentionally destroyed America's schools. That's an act of war. And I consider forcing via mandate the buildup of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of nuclear warheads worth of perfectly good reactor fuel just waiting for a disaster to be an act of war as well - Only an enemy would intentionally mandate the creation of such a threat, who on earth would, other than someone who hated America? Not only did America lose a marvelous clean virtually free energy future, that future got converted into a threat that could very easily destroy the nation and take much of the world with it. All it would take to kill America, with America's nuclear facilities drastically overloaded with 5% spent fuel, is 150 smart bombs. One successful bombing run and it is over. And that's not even taking into consideration other disaster scenarios, such as earthquakes and computer virus attacks.

The enemy of America is now in complete control of the nation

Ever since Kennedy's assassination America has not had a true representative government, especially starting with Carter. When I worked for the NSA, I saw a few computers which were identical to the early vote counting computers, and they could be set to loop a single ballot over and over again. With a scammed vote, America got over-run by outsiders who wanted the country destroyed. Prior to 1973 America was only going upward, and anyone who wanted to see America destroyed or enslaved would never permit Americans to get virtually free energy. The enemy would lose oil profits. They would potentially lose control of energy, leaving the financial system the only means of forced social compliance outside of a hot war and the enemy wanted control options. True clean energy had to be stopped.
The enemy of America is a sinister enemy. It is a small group of religiously "elite" people who weaponize everything. They have weponized sympathy, victim status, water systems, vaccines, genetically modified organisms and even terror - anything they have been able to think of, and have used these things and many more to cause destruction. And the nuclear industry, now blocked from a dream come true technology, can be used as a weapon.

The truth in this is undeniable

There is plenty of proof. No shill can stop people from checking out the history of other nations, such as Germany, France and Russia offering America BILLIONS for this not so "spent" fuel, which can only sit as a hazard after a political decision banning technologies which allow for it's purification at the same time additional political decisions have banned it's export. This hazard has been unnecessarily and intentionally accumulating for years. It's the equivalent of keeping a 5,000 gallon tank of petrol in your bedroom. Better hope all is well with it.
I honestly feel that banning this miracle technology; you should have heard the sparkle, the awe in the old man's voice when he said they closed the "nuclear loop", and the sadness, despair and anger expressed at it's being banned; I feel it was an act of war against America. There were never any accidents associated with this technology, according to this engineer everything negative said about it was a bold faced lie spoken by people of ill intent. America's nuclear waste problem is not scientific, it is political.

I believe this nuclear engineer opened up and told me about this because I was the first journalist he ever encountered that actually understood nuclear technology. He knew I would understand what he said and subsequently bring this story to the public. But outside of making the public aware by telling his story in an article such as this, what more can I do?

http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE MYTH OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY [[[[[[[[[[
Bernard L. Cohen (1/3/1989)
By Bernard L. Cohen, Department of Physics, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.

(From Karl Otto Ott and Bernard I. Spinard, eds. Nuclear Energy
(New York: Plenum Press, 1985), pp. 355-365)

[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

Plutonium is constantly referred to by the news media as ``the
most toxic substance known to man.'' Ralph Nader has said that a
pound of plutonium could cause 8 billion cancers, and former
Senator Ribicoff has said that a single particle of plutonium
inhaled into the lung can cause cancer. There is no scientific
basis for any of these statements as I have shown in a paper in
the refereed scientific journal Health Physics (Vol. 32, pp.
359-379, 1977). Nader asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
evaluate my paper, which they did in considerable depth and
detail, but when they gave it a ``clean bill of health'' he
ignored their report. When he accuses me of ``trying to detoxify
plutonium with a pen,'' I offered to eat as much plutonium as he
would eat of caffeine, which my paper shows is comparably
dangerous, or given reasonable TV coverage, to personally inhale
1000 times as much plutonium as he says would be fatal, or in
response to former Senator Ribicoff's statement to inhale 1000
particles of plutonium of any size that can be suspended in air.
My offer was made to all major TV networks but there has never
been a reply beyond a request for a copy of my paper. Yet the
false statements continue in the news media and surely 95% of the
public accept them as fact although virtually no one in the
radiation health scientific community gives them credence. We
have here a complete breakdown in communication between the
scientific community and the news media, and an unprecedented
display of irresponsibility by the latter. One must also
question the ethics of Nader and Ribicoff; I have sent them my
papers and written them personal letters, but I have never
received a reply.
Let's get at the truth here about plutonium toxicity. We
begin by outlining a calculation of the cancer risk from intake
of plutonium (we refer to it by its chemical symbol, Pu) based on
standard procedures recommended by all national and international
organizations charges with responsibility in this area, and
accepted by the vast majority of radiobiomedical scientists.

1. ESTIMATE OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY FROM STANDARD PROCEDURES
The first step is to calculate the radiation dose in rem (the
unit of dose) to each organ of the human body per gram of Pu
intake. According to ICRP (International Commission on Radiation
Protection) Publication No. 19, about 25% of inhaled particles of
the size of interest (0.5-5 [micro]m in diameter) deposit in the
lung, and 60% of this is eliminated only with a 500-day
half-life. From this information and the known rate and energy
of [alpha]-particle emission, we can calculate the radiation
energy deposited in the lung, which is directly convertible to
dose in rem.
According to ICRP Publication 19, 5% of inhaled Pu gets into
the bloodstream from which 45% gets into the bone and an equal
amount collects in the liver; the times required for elimination
from these are 70 and 35 years, respectively. This is all the
information needed to calculate doses to bone and liver in rem
per gram of Pu inhaled.
If Pu is ingested with food or water in soluble form, the ICRP
estimates that 3 x 10^-5 (30 parts per million) gets through the
intestine walls into the bloodstream. From this and the
information given above, calculation of rem to the bone and liver
per gram of Pu ingested is straightforward. In addition, there
is dosage to the gastrointestinal tract calculable by ICRP
prescriptions.
Once the dose in rem is calculated, the next step is to
convert this to cancer risk using the BEIR Report, the standard
reference in this area produced by the National Academy of
Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
It recommends a model in which there is a 15-year latent period
following exposure during which there are no effects, followed by
a 30-year ``plateau'' period during which there is a constant
risk of 1.3 x 10^-6 (1.3 chances per million) per year per rem
for lung cancer and 0.2, 1.0, and 0.3 x 10^-6 per year per rem
for bone, gastrointestinal tract and liver* cancer, respectively.
For children less than 10 years old, these are divided by
five, and for an older person, there is a calculable probability
that death will result from other causes before the cancer
develops. With this information we can calculate the cancer risk
as a function of age at intake. Averaging over ages, we obtain
the average cancer risk per gram of Pu intake.
* In the BEIR Report, liver cancer is included among ``all
other'' for which the risk is 1.0 x 10^-6, the value used here is
based partly on other information.
TABLE I
Cancer Doses in Micrograms (Defined as the
Inverse of Risk per Microgram)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrance Mode 239-Pu Reactor-Pu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation (dust in air) 1300 200
Ingestion with food or water 6.5 x 10^6 1 x 10^6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The results are given in Table I for the most important
isotope of Pu, 239-Pu, which contains 1 curie of radioactivity
for each 16g, and for the mixture of Pu isotopes that would be
commonly found in power reactors, which is 6 times more intensely
radioactive (1 curie in each 2.5 g). We refer to the latter as
``reactor-Pu'' and use it in our discussions where appropriate.
Table I shows the inverse of the risk, which we call the
``cancer dose.'' For example, we see that the risk of inhaling
reactor-Pu is 1/200 per [micro]g, so if one inhales 10 [micro]g,
he has one chance in 20 of developing cancer as a result.
Another application is that in a large population we may expect
one cancer for every 200 [micro]g inhaled, so if a total of 1000
[micro]g is inhaled by people, we may expect 5 cancers
(regardless of the number of people involved).
Estimates of cancer doses of Pu have also been derived using
different methods by the British Medical Research Council in its
report ``The Toxicity of Plutonium,'' and by Dr. C.W. Mays (who
developed some of the important basic information in his
experiments on dogs) in a report published by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA-SM-202/806), and they agree closely
with Table I. We see from Table I that Pu is dangerous
principally when inhaled as a fine dust. It is not very toxic
when ingested with food or drink because of its very small
probability of passing through the intestine walls into the
bloodstream. Pu forms large molecules, which have great
difficulty in passing through membranes.
In addition to causing cancer, intake of plutonium can also
cause genetic defects among progeny in the next 5-10 generations,
but the total number of eventual genetic defects before they are
bred out is only 20% of the number of cancers. For simplicity we
restrict our discussion to cancers, but the genetic effects can
always be included by applying the 20% addition.
The estimates in Table I are based on data from radiation
effects on humans as analyzed in the BEIR Report. These include
Japanese A-bomb survivors, miners exposed to radon gas, people
treated for various maladies with radium or with X-rays, etc.
None of these effects were from Pu -- there is no evidence for
any injury to humans from Pu toxicity. However, there is a
considerable amount of data from animal studies with Pu, and this
is summarized for lung cancer in Fig. 1 where the line shows the
estimate from our calculation. In general the agreement is quite
reasonable.
[Omitted: ``FIGURE 1. Data from animal studies with Pu,
summarized for lung cancer.'' The graph shows 40 data-points,
with confidence intervals, from animal studies (dogs, mice, rats,
rabbits) with a calculated line over them. The x-axis, which is
logarithmically scaled, is labeled ``Dose to Lung (millions of
millirem)'' and the y-axis is labeled ``Incidence of Lung Cancer
(%)''. Taking representative points from the calculated line in
the figure, we get: (~0.3 Mmrem, ~1%), (~1.0 Mmrem, ~5%), (~10.0
Mmrem, ~38%), (~11.0 Mmrem, ~65%). Mmrem: millions of millirem.]
There has been a great deal of publicity about the high point
for beagle dogs (the highest point in Fig. 1) but we see that our
curve passes within the error bars given by the authors. One
aspect of the experiment that is frequently overlooked is that
the latent period for development of the cancers increased with
decreasing dose, and in fact the dogs contributing to the point
under discussion developed cancer rather late in life. If this
effect is extrapolated to lower doses, the latent period for most
doses usually considered would greatly exceed life expectancy, so
the effects we derive in this paper would be substantially
reduced.

2. CRITICISMS OF STANDARD PROCEDURES
There have been several criticisms of treatments like the one
we have given. The best known of these is the ``hot-particle''
theory, which gives greatly increased effects (by a factor of
100,000) due to the fact that the Pu is not evenly distributed
over the lung but is concentrated in particles, which give much
higher than average doses to a few cells. This theory has been
studied and rejected by the following groups:
o A Committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciencesb
especially assembled for this study in a report entitled
``Health Effects of Alpha-emitting Particles in the
Respiratory Tract
o U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurement (NCRP), a very distinguished group composed of
about 70 in our nation's leading radiobiomedical research
scientists, in NCRP Publication No. 46
o British Medical Research Council in ``The Toxicity of
Plutonium''
o U.K. National Radiological Protection Board in its Report
R-29 and Bulletin No. 8 (1974)
o U.S. AEC in a very elaborate study, WASH-1320, authored by
three of the world's leading researchers on Pu toxicity
o U.S. NRC in Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 76
o U.K. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution -- Sixth
Report -- Nuclear Power and the Environment
One easily understood aspect of these criticisms is that there
were about 25 workers at Los Alamos who inhaled varying amounts
of Pu about 30 years ago, and according to the ``hot-particle''
theory each should have experienced about 200 lung cancers,
whereas there have been no lung cancers as yet among them.
According to our estimates in Table I, there is a 40% chance that
one of them would have had lung cancer, so this is experimental
evidence that Table I does not grossly underestimate the cancer
risk from Pu intake. [For more on the Los Alamos workers see
George L. Voelz, Robert S. Grier, Louis H. Hempelmann, ``A
37-Year Medical Follow-Up Of Manhattan Project Pu Workers'',
Health Physics, Vol. 48, No. 3 (March 1985), pp. 249-259.]
Another criticism of the ``hot-particle'' theory is that there
are experiments on animals in which two groups were exposed to
the same total amount of Pu but in one of them it was much more
in the form of hot particles -- and that group experienced fewer
cancers. It was also pointed out that particles in the lung do
not stay in one place but are constantly moving about so that
their exposure does not fall on only a few cells.
After these rejections of the ``hot-particle'' theory
appeared, John Gofman, a former research scientist who has spent
the past several years as the full-time leader of an antinuclear
organization, came out with a new theory ascribing enhanced
toxicity to Pu. His paper was not written for a scientific
journal but was inserted in the congressional Record by Senator
Gravel. His basic premise was that smoking destroys the cilia,
the fine hairs that stop dust particles from entering the
bronchial region -- this much was well established -- and that Pu
particles therefore remain in that region for a very long time,
allowing their radiation to cause bronchial cancers. This allows
him to ignore the animal data as animals do not smoke. He also
manages to explain the lack of lung cancers among the 25 Los
Alamos workers by a combination of four improbable hypotheses,
the failure of any one of which would destroy his theory.
There have been at least seven individual critiques of the
Gofman theory. Perhaps the most telling criticism is that there
was a series of experiments at New York University in which a
number of graduate students inhaled a controlled amount of
radioactive dust and the rate at which this dust was cleared from
the bronchial region was directly determined by placing radiation
detectors over their chests and measuring the radiation intensity
as a function of time. It was found that there was no difference
between smokers and nonsmokers, and the experimenters concluded
that smokers do more coughing and have increases mucous flow,
which compensates for their lack of cilia. In fact, if dust
accumulated in the bronchial region of smokers in the manner
postulated by Gofman, their bronchial tubes would be completely
closed and they would die by suffocation.
There were many more weak points in the details of the Gofman
paper. He misuses the BEIR Report, he miscalculates the area of
the bronchial region by a factor of 17 and thereby incorrectly
increases the toxicity by that factor, he misuses the ICRP lung
model, etc. He even suggests that the great increase in lung
cancer in recent years may be due to Pu, but this increase has
been steady since the 1930s whereas Pu-induced cancers should not
have occurred until 1960. Moreover, the lung cancer increases
have been in areas with chemical industry and high air pollution,
and there has been no increase in areas downwind from the Nevada
test site where Pu would have its maximum effect.
A relatively less publicized attack on the conventional
approach to evaluating Pu toxicity is the ``warm-particle''
theory of Edward Martell. He hypothesizes that natural radiation
is one of the principal causes of lung cancer, but this idea has
not been accepted by the cancer research community.
K.Z. Morgan has proposed that the relative biological
effectiveness (RBE) for Pu in bone might be 250 times larger than
the usual value. C.W. Mays, on whose experiments much of
Morgan's hypothesis is based, reanalyzed Morgan's work and
concluded that if his approach is correct, the increase should be
only by a factor of 10. There is experimental information on
this from some supposedly ``terminally ill'' patients injected
with Pu in 1945-46 to study Pu metabolism. Four of these are
still alive and one who was injected with a rather large quantity
died of unrelated causes only in 1968. If the RBE of Pu were 10
times the present value, there is a better than even chance that
one of these five would have gotten bone cancer, but none did.
As our calculated inhalation effects are dominated by lung
cancer, a factor of 10 increase in bone cancer risk would only
double the total inhalation risk.
S.M. Wolfe, and employee of a Nader-sponsored group, drew
far-reaching conclusions from the fact that 11 of the first 30
deaths in the US Transuranic Registry (a registry of people who
have worked with plutonium) revealed cancers on autopsy, whereas
based on listed cause-of-death for all U.S. males, only 6.2 of
each 30 deaths is from cancer. His paper, which was never
published in the scientific literature, received very wide
publicity in the news media. However, it turned out that
autopsies were done preferentially on people who had died of
cancer, and that explained the entire effect. In addition, it
was pointed out that Pu is expected to cause cancers of the lung,
bone, and liver, whereas among the 11 cases there were no bone or
liver cancers, and less than the expected number of lung cancers
for a normal population. Needless to say, the news media never
bothered to report that the Wolf paper was based on an incorrect
premise.
In evaluating all of the criticisms outlined above, it is
important to realize that they are actively considered every year
by a committee of the ICRP and that they have repeatedly been
rejected. Likewise, the EPA, which has jurisdiction in the U.S.,
studied the matter and decided not to modify its standards. No
standard-setting or official study group in any country has given
credence to any of these criticisms of the standard procedures we
used in deriving Table I.

3. CONSEQUENCES OF PLUTONIUM DISPERSAL
It is clear from Table I that Pu is dangerous principally as
an inhalant, so we now consider the consequences of a dispersal
of Pu powder in a populated area. The calculations are done with
a standard meteorological model, in which the dust cloud moves
with the wind dispersing in the downwind, crosswind, and vertical
directions. Meteorologists have determined the extent of
dispersal as a function of wind velocity and atmospheric
stability. Figure 2 shows the results of calculations assigning
the atmospheric stability most characteristic of each wind
velocity. This is different between day and night, so separate
curves are given for each.
These curves give the area within which various fractions,
q/Q, of the dispersed Pu are taken in by a person inhaling at an
average rate. For example, we see from Fig. 2 that for a typical
daytime 8 m/sec wind velocity, only in an area of 500 m^2 is as
much as 10^-6 (one millionth) of the dispersed Pu inhaled. A
typical city population is 10^-2 people/m^2, so there would
typically be about 5 people in this area. Similarly, from Fig.
2, about 60 people would inhale 10^-7, 700 people would inhale
10^-8, etc. of the dispersed Pu.
As we know the cancer risk per microgram of Pu inhaled from
Table I, it is straightforward to calculate the total number of
cancers expected per gram of Pu dispersed. When corrections are
applied for the fraction of typical Pu powders that are in
particles of respirable size, the efficiency of dispersal, the
protection afforded by being inside buildings, and decreased
breathing rates at night, the result is that we may expect about
one eventual cancer for every 24 g of Pu dispersed, or about 19
fatalities per pound.
If there is a warning, as in a blackmail scenario, people can
be instructed to breathe through a folded handkerchief or a thick
article of clothing, with a resulting decrease in fatalities to 3
per pound dispersed.
Eventually, the Pu settles to the ground but it may then be
blown up by winds. Meteorologists have also developed methods
for calculating these effects (``deposition'' and
``resuspension''). Within the first few months, this causes
about one-third as many cancers as inhalation from the initial
cloud. Beyond this time period, resuspension is of much less and
continually decreasing importance as the Pu becomes part of the
soil.
[Omitted: ``FIGURE 2. Area over which the ratio of inhaled to
dispersed Pu has values shown for q/Q versus wind velocity under
typical day and night atmospheric conditions.'' The x-axis,
which is logarithmically scaled, is labeled ``Wind Velocity
(meters/sec)'' and the y-axis is labeled ``Area (meter^2)''.]
Of course, 239-Pu lasts for tens of thousands of years, so let
us consider its effects over this time period. We know the
amount of uranium in soil and we know now how much there is as
dust in the air, so we can estimate how much is inhaled per year
-- it calculates out to be 1.3 x 10^-11 of that in the top 20 cm
of soil. If this factor is applied to the Pu after it becomes
part of the soil, we find that over the 25,000-year half-life
there will eventually be about one fatality per 2500 g of Pu
dispersed. Thus, we see that the long half-life is almost
irrelevant; nearly all of the damage eventually done occurs very
soon after dispersal.
A summary of all these effects of Pu dispersal is given in
Table II. It also includes plant uptake into food. There is a
great deal of information on uptake of Pu by plants both from
laboratory experiments and from several areas where an
appreciable amount of Pu has gotten into the soil from bomb tests
or from various research activities. Plant uptake is small for
the same reason that Pu does not easily pass through the walls of
the intestines -- it forms large molecules, which do not easily
pass through membranes. From Table II we see that the total
eventual effect of Pu dispersal in a city is one fatality per 18
g dispersed without warning, or 25 fatalities per pound.
TABLE II
Summary of Fatalities per Gram
of Reactor-Pu Dispersed
-----------------------------------------------
Inhalation from cloud 0.042 (1/24)
Resuspension 0.014
Long Term 0.0004 (1/2500)
Plant uptake into food 0.002
Total 0.058 (1/18)
-----------------------------------------------

4. DANGERS OF PLUTONIUM DISPERSAL
The fear is sometimes expressed that the world may become
``contaminated'' with 239-Pu. To evaluate this potentiality, we
calculate that if all the world's present electric power were
produced by fast breeder reactors in an equilibrium situation
where Pu is consumed as fast as it is produced, the total amount
of 239-Pu existing in the world would be 2 x 10^8 curies.
By comparison, the radium (226-Ra) in each meter of depth of
the earth's crust is 1.2 x 10^9 curies, so there is as much Ra in
each 17 cm of depth as there would be 239-Pu in the whole world.
For ingestion, Ra is 40 times more toxic than Pu as it passes
through the intestine walls much more easily. For direct
inhalation, Ra is less hazardous than Pu, but it serves as a
source of radon gas, which comes up out of the ground and mixes
with the air we breathe, and therefore is a serious inhalation
hazard, so as material on the ground, Ra is a 40-fold greater
inhalation hazard than Pu.
Thus, as a long-term hazard either for ingestion or for
inhalation, Ra is 40 times worse than Pu; the total Pu in
existence for an all-breeder power system would then be as
dangerous as the Ra in each 4 mm of our soil. Of course, nearly
all of this Pu would be in reactors or in other parts of the
nuclear industry, well isolated from the environment.
There is now a legal requirement on the allowable releases of
Pu from nuclear plants, which is such that if all U.S. power were
nuclear and derived from fast breeder reactors (they use the most
Pu), the total releases would be about 0.6 g/year. If we use
table II, this would predict an average of 0.03 fatality/year,
but that would be valid only if nuclear plants were in cities; as
they are not, the expected effects are about 10 times less, or
one fatality in 300 years.
Some perspective on this problem may be obtained by comparing
the 0.6 g/year tht [sic] may some day be released by the nuclear
industry with the amount of Pu that has been dispersed in the
atmosphere in nuclear bomb tests, which is 5 million g.
Estimates on the same basis that we have been using predict about
200 U.S. fatalities to date from Pu releases in bomb tests, and
4000 in the world. It also predicts about 200 fatalities
worldwide from the reentry burn-up in 1964 of a space vehicle
carrying a SNAP-9A 238-Pu-powered energy source. It is important
to keep in mind that all of these estimates are theoretical.
These is no direct evidence for Pu toxicity having caused serious
injury to any human being, anywhere, ever.
The reason why the legal requirement on plutonium releases is
so stringent is not because Pu is so dangerous, but because the
technology is available for keeping the releases that low, and in
fact this technology is very close to present practice. Pu dust
particles tend to stick to each other and their containers, so Pu
is not easily dispersed. It is also very readily collected on
filters; anywhere Pu powder is used, the air is exhausted through
filters, which catch all but about one part per billion of the
dust suspended in air.
Of course, the control measures are expensive and they
increase the cost of nuclear electricity. As previously noted,
the reason they are required is not because Pu is so dangerous --
one fatality every 300 years is surely a trivial problem when
burning coal, our only viable alternative to nuclear energy, is
killing 10,000 people every year with its air pollution -- but
because the public is afraid of plutonium. Ralph Nader, former
Senator Ribicoff, John Gofman, and their like have done their
work well, and the public is paying the price in its electric
bills.
One often hears that in large-scale production of Pu we will
be creating unprecedented quantities of a poisonous material.
Because Pu is dangerous principally as an inhalant, we compare it
in Table III with quantities of other poisonous inhalants
produced in the U.S. We see that it is relatively trivial by
comparison. Moreover, it should be noted that Pu is not easily
dispersed whereas the others are gases and hence readily
dispersible. Of course, Pu released to the environment will last
far longer than these gases, which would be decomposed
chemically, but recall from our earlier discussion that nearly
all of the damage done in Pu dispersal is by the initial cloud of
dust; all of the later resuspension and the thousands of years
spent in the soil do far less damage. It is thus not unfair to
compare Pu with the poison gases, and we see from Table III that
it will always be far less of a hazard.
TABLE III
Lethal Inhalation Doses Produced Annually in the
U.S. (x 10^12)
----------------------------------------------------------
Chlorine 400
Phosgene 18
Ammonia 6
Hydrogen cyanide 6
Pu if all U.S. power were from fast breeder reactors 1
----------------------------------------------------------
It is often argued that there is a great deal we do not know
about Pu toxicity. While this may be true, one would be
hard-pressed to name another public health issue that is as well
understood and controlled. Surely it would not be air pollution
from burning coal, which is a million times more serious a
problem. Surely it is not food additives or insecticides or such
[the dangers from these have also been greatly exaggerated] that
may well be doing real harm to our health. Pu hazards are far
better understood than any of these, and the one fatality per 300
years they may someday cause is truly trivial by comparison.
In spite of the facts we have cited here, facts well known in
the scientific community, the myth of Pu toxicity lingers on.
The news media ignore us, and prefer to continue scaring the
public at every opportunity. They don't recognize the difference
between political issues on which everyone is equally entitled to
an opinion, and scientific issues, which are susceptible to
scientific investigation and proof. The myth may linger forever.

Unbiased truthseekers, keen observers, members with an open mind (and there are plenty here on this forum), what a pitty you don't come to this thread.
I wonder why.

Great articles there, I copied them here for those that are afraid to click random links, very good addition to the thread.

PFFFFFFFF, sigh, revisiting this thread to watch Galen speak again and skim through the comments and I really wish someone would jam this thread up Alex Jones his rectum to see if it makes him glow with embarrassment about his panicking about Poohooshima, I mean how could a guy like that ignore information as shared by Galen and not be amazed by the lack of international effort to cap those reactors, seriously, that guy has become a first class mouthpiece for tptb if you ask me, he is selling his iodine supplements like crazy by playing the radiation scare, @ssholery of unheard of proportions imo.

Anyone ALLOWED to do what he is doing is certainly doing what is desired... he is CO-INTEL-PRO (if your familiar with those declassified programs).

And I have no way to calculate the damage done to the ocean, but isn't the ocean frikking loaded with radiation absorbing iodine for billions of years now in the form of all kinds of seaweeds we make iodine supplements from, all water ever fallen on earth comes from the ocean and eventually returns there after it has flown over soils, through rocks spiked with radioactive materials that are naturally present in the earths geology, and the weird part is, there is just as much radioactives on the planet now as from the moment the planet became a planet, and perhaps the occasional meteorite impact, and the ocean just keeps producing salads as it has always done.

Hm:confused:

Yeah, this is probably one of THE major lies (mostly because it's blocking an extremely abundant source of ENERGY, and energy is the answer to everything) that we face today, this is the ONLY reason I put a bit of effort into the "fukushima" threads (to the scorn of the posters there... haha).

even with the 17 pages of information and commentary on this thread, the "secret" is still not out (or rather, the indoctrination is so difficult to over come, it's hard to get this message out there).

ljwheat

19th December 2013, 16:15

PFFFFFFFF, sigh, revisiting this thread to watch Galen speak again and skim through the comments and I really wish someone would jam this thread up Alex Jones his rectum to see if it makes him glow with embarrassment about his panicking about Poohooshima, I mean how could a guy like that ignore information as shared by Galen and not be amazed by the lack of international effort to cap those reactors, seriously, that guy has become a first class mouthpiece for tptb if you ask me, he is selling his iodine supplements like crazy by playing the radiation scare, @ssholery of unheard of proportions imo.

And I have no way to calculate the damage done to the ocean, but isn't the ocean frikking loaded with radiation absorbing iodine for billions of years now in the form of all kinds of seaweeds we make iodine supplements from, all water ever fallen on earth comes from the ocean and eventually returns there after it has flown over soils, through rocks spiked with radioactive materials that are naturally present in the earths geology, and the weird part is, there is just as much radioactives on the planet now as from the moment the planet became a planet, and perhaps the occasional meteorite impact, and the ocean just keeps producing salads as it has always done.

Hm:confused:

778, . Very valid points - about the planet nothing has been added or taken away since it formed long ago. Evidence has shown the even volcano’s are not a bad thing either.

Sure you don’t want to get caught under it when it go’s off, plenty of collateral damage. But all the raw essential minerals including radio active ore’s replenish the earth that we as well as plant and animal life need to live on this rock.

Once these raw materials brake down, life flourishes just like in Japan after the bombs dropped life came rolling back. Those two city’s didn’t become dead zones for 5,000.000 years as we were lead to believe. Quite the opposite to place.

Russian accident and its now a dead zone, yet plant and animal have flourished beyond belief since the NRC decided to call it a dead zone, yet the same DNA and the building blocks of life, mock there fear scam clams, Sigh…

So this really got me thinking ---- if dead zones are only supported by fear of some idiot saying you have to live underground for 5 thousand years. A total lie. Then world War III will only kill those caught in the blast radius, and since there are more city’s than they have bombs. Life will go on and the dead zone’s will only exist in the heads of the NRC believers. And the only evidence of this possibility is in two city’s in Japan that thieve, yet today.
Any one ask the NRC to explain what happened in Japan and why dead zones are needed after a couple accidents?

And the literal thousand of above ground testing of A-bomb and H-bomb testing over the years combined would add up to over 20 time’s what is at a dead zone in Japan to day.

The evidence if kept in context and separated from the NRC Fear Scam, tells us a completely different story just as Galen Winsor so for told before the NRC scared the crappola out of people on this planet.

We’ve been blinded since birth, on many topic’s this one is a hug one. People already blind, then you add a blind fold of fear on top of that, then you can see the dilemma we face, So the rest of the world will still see us as blubbering idiots. And continue to run away from the NRC boggy man in the closets of their minds.

Its really not there fault, that’s why its called a rabbit hole, its deep and was put there over century’s, and some little puck is at the bottom still digging, and making it deeper yet. If you look at the bottom core of what is running this planet its only one thing.. Commerce -- consumption -- of energy. On all levels dig it up consume it, then burry it. On a planet where everything eats everything else to stay alive.

Galen Winsor one of the leader’s in his field, none greater with hands on first person experience ,,, Before the NRC turns whistle blower. The evidence of Japan two thriving city’s not dead for 5 thousand year. Laugh in the face of the NRC’s .. And their 6 decades of lie’s.

Kimberley

19th December 2013, 18:18

Heyokah thank you for the articles! Daphne welcome to Avalon and welcome to this important thread!

And hello all the rest of you that follow and contribute to this thread.

Daphne, I grew up with great fear around nuclear also. And now most people think I am a nut job when I tell them I am no longer fearful of nuclear energy or fall out etc...and I to were a radio active rock around my neck and drink radiated water and sleep on a radio active mud pack :-)

Much love, peace, health, and fun to us all! :grouphug:

778 neighbour of some guy

19th December 2013, 18:33

Quote Posted by 778 neighbour of some guy View Post

PFFFFFFFF, sigh, revisiting this thread to watch Galen speak again and skim through the comments and I really wish someone would jam this thread up Alex Jones his rectum to see if it makes him glow with embarrassment about his panicking about Poohooshima, I mean how could a guy like that ignore information as shared by Galen and not be amazed by the lack of international effort to cap those reactors, seriously, that guy has become a first class mouthpiece for tptb if you ask me, he is selling his iodine supplements like crazy by playing the radiation scare, @ssholery of unheard of proportions imo.

Anyone ALLOWED to do what he is doing is certainly doing what is desired... he is CO-INTEL-PRO (if your familiar with those declassified programs).

Yeah, exactly what I think, no such thing as internet freedom, no way and he is most certainly throwing out the bait to catch the more naïve ones, all provocation and a LOT of ego, that guy is so easy to play, doing his cute martyr act, all he does is instigate, hopes for a riot that will result in the opposite he says he is defending.

d7jJMYJbAKc

Below comment belongs to the above clip and no I am NOT anti Semite.

1.) Alex Jones has a Jewish wife named Kelly Rebecca Nichols, and he has three(3) children with her.

2.) Alex Jones and his Jewish wife and children all qualify for Israeli citizenship under Israel's "Law of Return".

3.) Alex Jones has at least twenty(20) Jewish sponsors and advertisers that financially support his radio show and websites.

4.) Alex Jones' flagship radio station, KLBJ AM, in Austin, Texas, is owned by Emmis Communications, a media conglomerate based in Indianapolis, Indiana. The founder, chairman, president, and CEO of Emmis Communications is the dual Israeli citizen Zionist Jew Jeffrey H. Smulyan.

5.) Alex Jones' radio show is broadcast on Sirius XM Radio. The chairman of Sirius XM Radio is the Jew Eddy W. Hartenstein. The CEO of Sirius XM Radio is the Jew Mel Karmazin. The President of Sirius XM Radio is the Jew Scott Greenstein. Of the six(6) senior executives of Sirius XM Radio, five(5) are Jews.

6.) Alex Jones has a Jewish lawyer named Elizabeth M. Schurig who is also the lawyer for Holly Lev Bronfman, the sister of Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Thus there are only two degrees of separation between Alex Jones and the Bronfman family, one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish Zionist families in North America.

Posted by 778 neighbour of some guy View Post

And I have no way to calculate the damage done to the ocean, but isn't the ocean frikking loaded with radiation absorbing iodine for billions of years now in the form of all kinds of seaweeds we make iodine supplements from, all water ever fallen on earth comes from the ocean and eventually returns there after it has flown over soils, through rocks spiked with radioactive materials that are naturally present in the earths geology, and the weird part is, there is just as much radioactives on the planet now as from the moment the planet became a planet, and perhaps the occasional meteorite impact, and the ocean just keeps producing salads as it has always done.

Hm

Yeah, this is probably one of THE major lies (mostly because it's blocking an extremely abundant source of ENERGY, and energy is the answer to everything) that we face today, this is the ONLY reason I put a bit of effort into the "fukushima" threads (to the scorn of the posters there... haha).

Uhuh, I know, its weird man, when someone says something that goes against the grain regarding the subject they drop the hammer, and yeah, its all about energy, big business is definitely set on milking us dry until the last drop of oil is sold.

There are plenty of energy solutions I think, but hey, who are we eh?

Kimberley

19th December 2013, 18:54

I had not seen the "busted" article until just now. What a great find! Now I am going to see if I get a hold of the 85 year old engineer Jim Stone talked to....

Who first posted that article before today? How did I miss it? Oh well!

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html

heyokah

19th December 2013, 19:08

Daphne

20th December 2013, 20:08

Hey Kimberly, I know that if I told my mom about my change of mind, she would have a fit! She was arrested multiple times at Seabrook NPP. Where do I get these rocks?

Also, here's a Ted talk- not sure if anyone posted this already. Supports This thread.

http://youtu.be/u7H5ToqUmfk

778 neighbour of some guy

21st December 2013, 14:45

[QUOTE=Daphne;774884]Hey Kimberly, I know that if I told my mom about my change of mind, she would have a fit! She was arrested multiple times at Seabrook NPP. Where do I get these rocks?

Also, here's a Ted talk- not sure if anyone posted this already. Supports This thread.

u7H5ToqUmfk

I took the liberty to add the clip, very interesting, thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Kimberley

22nd December 2013, 16:44

Daphne, I live 20 minutes from Seabrook NPP, and up until finding the Galen information and all the information gathered on this thread I was not a physical protest like your brave Mother, however it sure scared me. Not any longer thank goodness.

Thank you for the Ted talk...I will look at it soon.

Hervé

22nd December 2013, 17:32

[...]

When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing new, he began to talk about an entirely different subject. He began his new direction in the discussion with the phrase "My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order

Here is what followed that introductory line, and an enormous reason why Americans need to seriously question the current government structure and possibly start over.

"I started in the American nuclear program...

[...]

Hi Target,

I have been looking for that reference all over my drives... couldn't find it...

Thanks for reposting it!

Kimberley

22nd December 2013, 19:22

Ok, thank you again Daphne! Great find!

I just wrote and e-mail to Sunniva and wanted to share it with you all. Of course I will let you know what she has to say.

Here is her blog : I had to use google translate to read a little of it. However I found her contact info there. I did not need a translator to understand "kontakt" is contact :-)

If anyone here reads the language, I would love to have your take on the overview of her blog..thanks

And while I have your attention I would like to thank you all that are reading and contributing to this thread a Very Merry Christmas and of cour a loving, peaceful, healthy, joyful, and FUN 2014!!!
:grouphug:

************************************************

Dear Sunniva,

I just saw your Ted talk video "Thorium Energy". That is how I found you.

About a year and a half ago a video lecture from 1985 titled "The Nuclear Scare Scam" came to my attention. The lecture is done by a man named Galen Winsor, he died about 5 years ago or so at the age of 85.

This is the link to one of several Galen Winsor lectures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA the others are found in the forum thread (link posted below).

Anyway what he had to say about nuclear energy back then has blown my mind and many other peoples minds open to a place that nuclear energy is not to be feared it is to be revered.

I am a member of a forum, Project Avalon, where we are safe to share and discuss many topics that are not topics that main stream media would present or discuss. We have compiled a lot of information that supports Galen Winsor's claims that nuclear energy is not something to fear in the way we the people of earth have been propagandized.

Here is the link to the 18 page long thread. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-

I know it will take you many hours to go through this thread on the forum, however I am sure you will be interested in what we have gathered and continue to gather and I expect it is information that you are already aware of. This thread just posted your TED Talk, that is how I discovered you and your work.

I/we would love to have you join our discussion on the forum. If you are interested in doing that let me know and I/we will invite you to be a member there. Most members have to fill out a questioner to become a member and everyone that requests membership is not admitted. It is a very closely moderated forum that is as I said safe and friendly and very open minded about 100's if not 1000's of topics.

Whether or not you would like to be a member, we would love any addition material/research that you have or are aware of that we could add to our thread that supports that nuclear energy is not to be feared it is to be revered.

And I am a radio journalist. I have a show that airs on a USA radio station that does allow me to air what ever I choose to air. I would love to interview you. The interview will also be posted on youtube.

However, I would like to do the interview with you discussing what you talked about in your TED Talk and I would like you to discuss your views on Galen Winsor's claims and the other supporting material that was gathered by several members of the Avalon forum.

I look forward to hearing back from you. And I look even more forward to hearing at the very least what your views are about what Galen Winsor had to say.

We can set up an interview, if you are interested, at a later time, after you have listed to Galen.

Merry Christmas and Happy 2014 to you and yours!

Thank you for your work!

Kimberley

Kimberley

22nd December 2013, 19:46

Even though, as it is well known, I no longer have the fear around nuclear Thorium is a new one to me, but obviously not new to others...

The Thorium Conspiracy - Stuff They Don't Want You to Know

AptxNrQpGA4

Also, FYI, the "Stuff They Don't Want You to Know" youtube channel has a lot of interesting "stuff" :-)

778 neighbour of some guy

22nd December 2013, 20:44

8hA8V8y52BM

D3rL08J7fDA

Sponsored by Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Department, Kun Chen takes the first questions from an American audience on China's Molten Salt Reactor Program, which was announced in January of 2011.

5UT2yYs5YJs

Dozens more video's on Thorium on YouTube.

Daphne

23rd December 2013, 03:13

How wonderful Kimberley! I can't wait to hear what she replies.
There are 2 questions I have. First, I wonder if Earthing is healing in part because of radiation in the earth? (Forgive my very limited understanding of all of this). And the other question is how radiation from a source such as Fukushima is the same or different than hot rocks found naturally in the Earth. When particles of fallout come down to the earth, do we absorb them differently? It's still fuzzy...

heyokah

26th December 2013, 09:21

i was reading Jim Stones website tonight and read this

In my journey of discovery in my investigation into the Fukushima disaster, I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked in the nuclear industry during America's glory days, and earned GE over 100 patents. He was one of the engineers who designed Fukushima, so naturally when conducting a real investigation into such a disaster a responsible journalist would want that type of reference. I was surprised when my prior study of the reactor systems there was so thorough that he had no information about Fukushima I did not already dig up, and he was very surprised when I told him details about the inner workings of the reactor he never expected anyone in the media to know.

When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing, he dropped a bombshell on a totally different subject. He opened his new direction of the discussion with the phrase

"My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order (http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/order.html)

Here is what followed that introductory line, and the reason why we need to oust the FED and start over.

The following is what he said in the interview

I started in the American nuclear program all the way back at the time of the Manhattan project, and have been involved in reactor design and nuclear engineering my whole life. There was one answer we all searched for, and it was how to close the nuclear loop.

When a reactor such as a boiling water reactor uses fuel, the waste products, which are highly radioactive isotopes that have a different fission characteristic than the fuel, build up in the fuel and poison the nuclear reaction. A reactor such as a boiling water reactor can only use the fuel until it gets contaminated by these isotopes enough to change the nature of the nuclear reactions taking place. The reaction environment inside a boiling water reactor is only one such environment that will work to trigger a chain reaction, and if that spent fuel is put into a reactor made from different materials, those materials can favor the burning of the poisonous isotopes, and use the isotopes as fuel until the fuel is purified of them, and therefore had it's original radiological characteristics restored. Once that is accomplished, the fuel can go back into the boiling water reactor, and used as new.

We perfected the second reactor design, which used liquid sodium as a coolant, and the reactor ran much hotter - 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor in lieu of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which boiled the water outside the reactor for use in producing electricity. The temperature difference and coolant characteristics facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction - one side produced electricity while poisoning the fuel, and the other side produced electricity while burning the poisons out. This process can be repeated 20 times, and when it is finished the fuel is DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it's radiological potential has been used up. It was a dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!

He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all.

He then went on to lament about what a waste of money it was, because the fuel is expensive, and they were only using it to about five percent of its total potential. He lamented the fact that his life's greatest accomplishment got banned for no good reason, and it was a tremendous waste of money to not use the technology his team developed. Electricity would have been cheap. REAL CHEAP. So cheap that homes would not have been heated with oil or natural gas, electricity would have been the only sensible choice. Furthermore, with a reduction in the price of electricity by at least 10X, electric cars would have been a no brainer.

This would have been America's free energy future, with the only real cost being maintenance of infrastructure.

His take on it was that we were now paying too much for electricity. I guess that's how an engineer thinks. He had read my article on Fukushima and liked it, so one would guess his eyes were open to the global conspiracy. Even still I think he missed the obvious in what he said.

Here is my take, and it has NOTHING to do with price, preservation of resources, or free energy.

Nuclear reactors are HUGE. They have an enormous amount of nuclear material in them. One boiling water reactor core the size of the ones at Fukushima can easily hold enough fissionable material to make countless atomic bombs. And with the technology that makes re-using that fuel illegal, it builds up at a rate of 25 tons per gigawatt YEAR. This means that even small facilities like Fort Calhoun have approximately a million pounds of highly radioactive "poisoned" fuel sitting in their pools waiting for the right combination of problems to cause a disaster......

More here: http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html

Here is the link to his 7 hours worth of reading and 100's of hours of research: fukushima report (http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushima1.html)

I bump the thread with witchy1's post about Jim Stone's interview with 85 year old nuclear engineer ( Bernard Leonard Cohen ?).
http://www.utimes.pitt.edu/?p=20431

TargeT

26th December 2013, 16:26

How wonderful Kimberley! I can't wait to hear what she replies.
There are 2 questions I have. First, I wonder if Earthing is healing in part because of radiation in the earth? (Forgive my very limited understanding of all of this).
I don't know what Earthing is, so i can't answer that really; however radiation has been shown to be healthy at certain levels (just like water, aspirin, and everything else on the planet)

And the other question is how radiation from a source such as Fukushima is the same or different than hot rocks found naturally in the Earth. When particles of fallout come down to the earth, do we absorb them differently? It's still fuzzy...

The radiation is the same, there are, however a couple of things produced that act differently than natural radiation, like cesium. however the levels of radioactivity are so low that none of it is of concern, that is why there is no "death count" or study that conclusively proves that anything bad has happens from Fukushima (much the same as Chernobyl).

heyokah

27th December 2013, 08:00

For the researchers among us that are looking for scientific facts, I have edited the article of the link kimberley provided in post 188 for better reading.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm

THE MYTH OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY

(1/3/1989)
By Bernard L. Cohen, Department of Physics, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.

Plutonium is constantly referred to by the news media as "the most toxic substance known to man.'' Ralph Nader has said that a pound of plutonium could cause 8 billion cancers, and former Senator Ribicoff has said that a single particle of plutonium inhaled into the lung can cause cancer.
There is no scientific basis for any of these statements as I have shown in a paper in the refereed scientific journal Health Physics (Vol. 32, pp. 359-379, 1977).
Nader asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evaluate my paper, which they did in considerable depth and detail, but when they gave it a "clean bill of health'' he ignored their report. When he accuses me of "trying to detoxify plutonium with a pen,'' I offered to eat as much plutonium as he would eat of caffeine, which my paper shows is comparably dangerous, or given reasonable TV coverage, to personally inhale 1000 times as much plutonium as he says would be fatal, or in response to former Senator Ribicoff's statement to inhale 1000 particles of plutonium of any size that can be suspended in air.
My offer was made to all major TV networks but there has never been a reply beyond a request for a copy of my paper.
Yet the false statements continue in the news media and surely 95% of the public accept them as fact although virtually no one in the radiation health scientific community gives them credence.
We have here a complete breakdown in communication between the scientific community and the news media, and an unprecedented display of irresponsibility by the latter.
One must also question the ethics of Nader and Ribicoff; I have sent them my papers and written them personal letters, but I have never received a reply.

Let's get at the truth here about plutonium toxicity.

We begin by outlining a calculation of the cancer risk from intake of plutonium (we refer to it by its chemical symbol, Pu) based on standard procedures recommended by all national and international organizations charges with responsibility in this area, and accepted by the vast majority of radiobiomedical scientists.

1. ESTIMATE OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY FROM STANDARD PROCEDURES

The first step is to calculate the radiation dose in rem (the unit of dose) to each organ of the human body per gram of Pu intake.
According to ICRP (International Commission on Radiation Protection) Publication No. 19, about 25% of inhaled particles of the size of interest (0.5-5 [micro]m in diameter) deposit in the lung, and 60% of this is eliminated only with a 500-day half-life. From this information and the known rate and energy of [alpha -particle emission, we can calculate the radiation energy deposited in the lung, which is directly convertible to dose in rem.

According to ICRP Publication 19, 5% of inhaled Pu gets into the bloodstream from which 45% gets into the bone and an equal amount collects in the liver; the times required for elimination from these are 70 and 35 years, respectively.
This is all the information needed to calculate doses to bone and liver in rem per gram of Pu inhaled.

If Pu is ingested with food or water in soluble form, the ICRP estimates that 3 x 10^-5 (30 parts per million) gets through the intestine walls into the bloodstream.
From this and the information given above, calculation of rem to the bone and liver per gram of Pu ingested is straightforward. In addition, there is dosage to the gastrointestinal tract calculable by ICRP prescriptions.

Once the dose in rem is calculated, the next step is to convert this to cancer risk using the BEIR Report, the standard reference in this area produced by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
It recommends a model in which there is a 15-year latent period following exposure during which there are no effects, followed by a 30-year "plateau'' period during which there is a constant risk of 1.3 x 10^-6 (1.3 chances per million) per year per rem for lung cancer and 0.2, 1.0, and 0.3 x 10^-6 per year per rem for bone, gastrointestinal tract and liver* cancer, respectively.

For children less than 10 years old, these are divided by five, and for an older person, there is a calculable probability that death will result from other causes before the cancer develops.
With this information we can calculate the cancer risk as a function of age at intake. Averaging over ages, we obtain the average cancer risk per gram of Pu intake.

* In the BEIR Report, liver cancer is included among "all other'' for which the risk is 1.0 x 10^-6, the value used here is based partly on other information

TABLE I
Cancer Doses in Micrograms (Defined as the
Inverse of Risk per Microgram)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrance Mode 239-Pu Reactor-Pu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation (dust in air) 1300 200
Ingestion with food or water 6.5 x 10^6 1 x 10^6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The results are given in Table I for the most important isotope of Pu, 239-Pu, which contains 1 curie of radioactivity for each 16g, and for the mixture of Pu isotopes that would be commonly found in power reactors, which is 6 times more intensely radioactive (1 curie in each 2.5 g).
We refer to the latter as "reactor-Pu'' and use it in our discussions where appropriate.

Table I shows the inverse of the risk, which we call the "cancer dose.''
For example, we see that the risk of inhaling reactor-Pu is 1/200 per [micro]g, so if one inhales 10 [micro]g, he has one chance in 20 of developing cancer as a result.
Another application is that in a large population we may expect one cancer for every 200 [micro]g inhaled, so if a total of 1000 [micro]g is inhaled by people, we may expect 5 cancers (regardless of the number of people involved).

Estimates of cancer doses of Pu have also been derived using different methods by the British Medical Research Council in its report "The Toxicity of Plutonium,'' and by Dr. C.W. Mays (who developed some of the important basic information in his experiments on dogs) in a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA-SM-202/806), and they agree closely with Table I.
We see from Table I that Pu is dangerous principally when inhaled as a fine dust.
It is not very toxic when ingested with food or drink because of its very small probability of passing through the intestine walls into the bloodstream.
Pu forms large molecules, which have great difficulty in passing through membranes.

In addition to causing cancer, intake of plutonium can also cause genetic defects among progeny in the next 5-10 generations, but the total number of eventual genetic defects before they are bred out is only 20% of the number of cancers.
For simplicity we restrict our discussion to cancers, but the genetic effects can always be included by applying the 20% addition.

The estimates in Table I are based on data from radiation effects on humans as analyzed in the BEIR Report.
These include Japanese A-bomb survivors, miners exposed to radon gas, people treated for various maladies with radium or with X-rays, etc.
None of these effects were from Pu -- there is no evidence for any injury to humans from Pu toxicity.
However, there is a considerable amount of data from animal studies with Pu, and this is summarized for lung cancer in Fig. 1 where the line shows the estimate from our calculation. In general the agreement is quite reason

[Omitted: FIGURE 1 , Data from animal studies with Pu, summarized for lung cancer.
The graph shows 40 data-points, with confidence intervals, from animal studies (dogs, mice, rats, rabbits) with a calculated line over them.
The x-axis, which is logarithmically scaled, is labeled "Dose to Lung (millions of
millirem)'' and the y-axis is labeled "Incidence of Lung Cancer (%)''.
Taking representative points from the calculated line in the figure, we get: (~0.3 Mmrem, ~1%), (~1.0 Mmrem, ~5%), (~10.0 Mmrem, ~38%), (~11.0 Mmrem, ~65%). Mmrem: millions of millirem.]

There has been a great deal of publicity about the high point for beagle dogs (the highest point in Fig.1) but we see that our curve passes within the error bars given by the authors.
One aspect of the experiment that is frequently overlooked is that the latent period for development of the cancers increased with decreasing dose, and in fact the dogs contributing to the point under discussion developed cancer rather late in life. If this effect is extrapolated to lower doses, the latent period for most doses usually considered would greatly exceed life expectancy, so the effects we derive in this paper would be substantially reduced.

2. CRITICISMS OF STANDARD PROCEDURES

There have been several criticisms of treatments like the one we have given.
The best known of these is the "hot-particle'' theory, which gives greatly increased effects (by a factor of 100,000) due to the fact that the Pu is not evenly distributed over the lung but is concentrated in particles, which give much higher than average doses to a few cells. This theory has been studied and rejected by the following groups:
o A Committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences especially assembled for this study in a report entitled "Health Effects of Alpha-emitting Particles in the Respiratory Tract.
o U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), a very distinguished group composed of about 70 in our nation's leading radiobiomedical research scientists, in NCRP Publication No. 46
o British Medical Research Council in "The Toxicity of Plutonium''
o U.K. National Radiological Protection Board in its Report R-29 and Bulletin No. 8 (1974)
o U.S. AEC in a very elaborate study, WASH-1320, authored by three of the world's leading researchers on Pu toxicity
o U.S. NRC in Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 76
o U.K. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution -- Sixth Report -- Nuclear Power and the Environment

One easily understood aspect of these criticisms is that there were about 25 workers at Los Alamos who inhaled varying amounts of Pu about 30 years ago, and according to the "hot-particle'' theory each should have experienced about 200 lung cancers, whereas there have been no lung cancers as yet among them.

According to our estimates in Table I, there is a 40% chance that one of them would have had lung cancer, so this is experimental evidence that Table I does not grossly underestimate the cancer risk from Pu intake.
[For more on the Los Alamos workers see George L. Voelz, Robert S. Grier, Louis H. Hempelmann, "A 37-Year Medical Follow-Up Of Manhattan Project Pu Workers'', Health Physics, Vol. 48, No. 3 (March 1985), pp. 249-259.]

Another criticism of the "hot-particle'' theory is that there are experiments on animals in which two groups were exposed to the same total amount of Pu but in one of them it was much more in the form of hot particles -- and that group experienced fewer cancers....
It was also pointed out that particles in the lung do not stay in one place but are constantly moving about so that their exposure does not fall on only a few cells.

After these rejections of the "hot-particle'' theory appeared, John Gofman, a former research scientist who has spent the past several years as the full-time leader of an antinuclear organization, came out with a new theory ascribing enhanced toxicity to Pu.
His paper was not written for a scientific journal, but was inserted in the congressional Record by Senator Gravel.
His basic premise was that smoking destroys the cilia, the fine hairs that stop dust particles from entering the bronchial region -- this much was well established -- and that Pu particles therefore remain in that region for a very long time, allowing their radiation to cause bronchial cancers.
This allows him to ignore the animal data as animals do not smoke. He also manages to explain the lack of lung cancers among the 25 Los Alamos workers by a combination of four improbable hypotheses, the failure of any one of which would destroy his theory.

There have been at least seven individual critiques of the Gofman theory. Perhaps the most telling criticism is that there was a series of experiments at New York University in which a number of graduate students inhaled a controlled amount of radioactive dust and the rate at which this dust was cleared from the bronchial region was directly determined by placing radiation detectors over their chests and measuring the radiation intensity as a function of time.
It was found that there was no difference between smokers and nonsmokers, and the experimenters concluded that smokers do more coughing and have increases mucous flow, which compensates for their lack of cilia.
In fact, if dust accumulated in the bronchial region of smokers in the manner
postulated by Gofman, their bronchial tubes would be completely closed and they would die by suffocation.

There were many more weak points in the details of the Gofman paper.
He misuses the BEIR Report, he miscalculates the area of the bronchial region by a factor of 17 and thereby incorrectly increases the toxicity by that factor, he misuses the ICRP lun model, etc. He even suggests that the great increase in lung
cancer in recent years may be due to Pu, but this increase has been steady since the 1930s whereas Pu-induced cancers should not have occurred until 1960. Moreover, the lung cancer increases have been in areas with chemical industry and high air pollution, and there has been no increase in areas downwind from the Nevada test site where Pu would have its maximum effect.

A relatively less publicized attack on the conventional approach to evaluating Pu toxicity is the "warm-particle'' theory of Edward Martell. He hypothesizes that natural radiation is one of the principal causes of lung cancer, but this idea has
not been accepted by the cancer research community.

K.Z. Morgan has proposed that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for Pu in bone might be 250 times larger than the usual value.
C.W. Mays, on whose experiments much of Morgan's hypothesis is based, reanalyzed Morgan's work and concluded that if his approach is correct, the increase should be only by a factor of 10.
There is experimental information on this from some supposedly "terminally ill'' patients injected with Pu in 1945-46 to study Pu metabolism.
Four of these are still alive and one who was injected with a rather large quantity
died of unrelated causes only in 1968.
If the RBE of Pu were 10 times the present value, there is a better than even chance that one of these five would have gotten bone cancer, but none did.
As our calculated inhalation effects are dominated by lung cancer, a factor of 10 increase in bone cancer risk would only double the total inhalation risk.

S.M. Wolfe, an employee of a Nader-sponsored group, drew far-reaching conclusions from the fact that 11 of the first 30 deaths in the US Transuranic Registry (a registry of people who have worked with plutonium) revealed cancers on autopsy, whereas based on listed cause-of-death for all U.S. males, only 6.2 of
each 30 deaths is from cancer.
His paper, which was never published in the scientific literature, received very wide
publicity in the news media. However, it turned out that autopsies were done preferentially on people who had died of cancer, and that explained the entire effect.
In addition, it was pointed out that Pu is expected to cause cancers of the lung, bone, and liver, whereas among the 11 cases there were no bone or liver cancers, and less than the expected number of lung cancers for a normal population. Needless to say, the news media never bothered to report that the Wolf paper was based on an incorrect premise.

In evaluating all of the criticisms outlined above, it is important to realize that they are actively considered every year by a committee of the ICRP and that they have repeatedly been rejected.
Likewise, the EPA, which has jurisdiction in the U.S., studied the matter and decided not to modify its standards.
No standard-setting or official study group in any country has given credence to any of these criticisms of the standard procedures weused in deriving Table I.

3. CONSEQUENCES OF PLUTONIUM DISPERSAL

It is clear from Table I that Pu is dangerous principally as an inhalant, so we now consider the consequences of a dispersal of Pu powder in a populated area.
The calculations are done with a standard meteorological model, in which the dust cloud moves with the wind dispersing in the downwind, crosswind, and vertical directions.
Meteorologists have determined the extent of dispersal as a function of wind velocity and atmospheric stability.
Figure 2 shows the results of calculations assigning the atmospheric stability most characteristic of each wind velocity. This is different between day and night, so separate curves are given for each.
These curves give the area within which various fractions,q/Q, of the dispersed Pu are taken in by a person inhaling at an average rate.
For example, we see from Fig. 2 that for a typical daytime 8 m/sec wind velocity, only in an area of 500 m^2 is as much as 10^-6 (one millionth) of thedispersed Pu inhaled. A typical city population is 10^-2 people/m^2, so there would
typically be about 5 people in this area.
Similarly, from Fig.2, about 60 people would inhale 10^-7, 700 people would inhale 10^-8, etc. of the dispersed Pu.

As we know the cancer risk per microgram of Pu inhaled from Table I, it is straightforward to calculate the total number of cancers expected per gram of Pu dispersed. When corrections are applied for the fraction of typical Pu powders that are in particles of respirable size, the efficiency of dispersal, the protection afforded by being inside buildings, and decreased breathing rates at night, the result is that we may expect about one eventual cancer for every 24 g of Pu dispersed, or about 19 fatalities per pound.
If there is a warning, as in a blackmail scenario, people can be instructed to breathe through a folded handkerchief or a thick article of clothing, with a resulting decrease in fatalities to 3 per pound dispersed.
Eventually, the Pu settles to the ground but it may then be blown up by winds. Meteorologists have also developed methods for calculating these effects ("deposition'' and "resuspension'').
Within the first few months this causes about one-third as many cancers as inhalation from the initial cloud.
Beyond this time period, resuspension is of much less and continually decreasing importance as the Pu becomes part of the soil.

[Omitted: FIGURE 2 "Area over which the ratio of inhaled to dispersed Pu has values shown for q/Q versus wind velocity under typical day and night atmospheric conditions.''
The x-axis, which is logarithmically scaled, is labeled "Wind Velocity (meters/sec)'' and the y-axis is labeled "Area (meter^2)''.]

Of course, 239-Pu lasts for tens of thousands of years, so let us consider its effects over this time period.
We know the amount of uranium in soil and we know now how much there is as
dust in the air, so we can estimate how much is inhaled per year -- it calculates out to be 1.3 x 10^-11 of that in the top 20 cm of soil. If this factor is applied to the Pu after it becomes part of the soil, we find that over the 25,000-year half-life
there will eventually be about one fatality per 2500 g of Pu dispersed.
Thus, we see that the long half-life is almost irrelevant; nearly all of the damage eventually done occurs very soon after dispersal.

A summary of all these effects of Pu dispersal is given inTable II.
It also includes plant uptake into food.
There is a great deal of information on uptake of Pu by plants both from
laboratory experiments and from several areas where an appreciable amount of Pu has gotten into the soil from bomb tests or from various research activities. Plant uptake is small for the same reason that Pu does not easily pass through the walls of the intestines -- it forms large molecules, which do not easily pass through membranes.
From Table II we see that the total eventual effect of Pu dispersal in a city is one fatality per 18 g dispersed without warning, or 25 fatalities per pound.

TABLE II
Summary of Fatalities per Gram
of Reactor-Pu Dispersed
-----------------------------------------------
Inhalation from cloud 0.042 (1/24)
Resuspension 0.014
Long Term 0.0004 (1/2500)
Plant uptake into food 0.002
Total 0.058 (1/18)
-----------------------------------------------

4. DANGERS OF PLUTONIUM DISPERSAL

The fear is sometimes expressed that the world may become "contaminated'' with 239-Pu. To evaluate this potentiality, we calculate that if all the world's present electric power were produced by fast breeder reactors in an equilibrium situation
where Pu is consumed as fast as it is produced, the total amount of 239-Pu existing in the world would be 2 x 10^8 curies.
By comparison, the radium (226-Ra) in each meter of depth of the earth's crust is 1.2 x 10^9 curies, so there is as much Ra in each 17 cm of depth as there would be 239-Pu in the whole world.
For ingestion, Ra is 40 times more toxic than Pu as it passes through the intestine walls much more easily. For direct inhalation, Ra is less hazardous than Pu, but it serves as a source of radon gas, which comes up out of the ground and mixes
with the air we breathe, and therefore is a serious inhalation hazard, so as material on the ground, Ra is a 40-fold greater inhalation hazard than Pu.

Thus, as a long-term hazard either for ingestion or for inhalation, Ra is 40 times worse than Pu; the total Pu in existence for an all-breeder power system would then be as dangerous as the Ra in each 4 mm of our soil. Of course, nearly
all of this Pu would be in reactors or in other parts of the nuclear industry, well isolated from the environment.

There is now a legal requirement on the allowable releases of Pu from nuclear plants, which is such that if all U.S. power were nuclear and derived from fast breeder reactors (they use the most Pu), the total releases would be about 0.6 g/year.
If we use table II, this would predict an average of 0.03 fatality/year, but that would be valid only if nuclear plants were in cities; as they are not, the expected effects are about 10 times less, or one fatality in 300 years.

Some perspective on this problem may be obtained by comparing the 0.6 g/year tht [sic] may some day be released by the nuclear industry with the amount of Pu that has been dispersed in the atmosphere in nuclear bomb tests, which is 5 million g.
Estimates on the same basis that we have been using predict about 200 U.S. fatalities to date from Pu releases in bomb tests, and 4000 in the world.
It also predicts about 200 fatalities worldwide from the reentry burn-up in 1964 of a space vehicle carrying a SNAP-9A 238-Pu-powered energy source.
It is important to keep in mind that all of these estimates are theoretical.
These is no direct evidence for Pu toxicity having caused serious injury to any human being, anywhere, ever.

The reason why the legal requirement on plutonium releases is so stringent is not because Pu is so dangerous, but because the technology is available for keeping the releases that low, and in fact this technology is very close to present practice.
Pu dust particles tend to stick to each other and their containers, so Pu is not easily dispersed. It is also very readily collected on filters; anywhere Pu powder is used, the air is exhausted through filters, which catch all but about one part per billion of the dust suspended in air.

Of course, the control measures are expensive and they increase the cost of nuclear electricity.
As previously noted, the reason they are required is not because Pu is so dangerous -- one fatality every 300 years is surely a trivial problem when burning coal, our only viable alternative to nuclear energy, is killing 10,000 people every year with its air pollution -- but because the public is afraid of plutonium.

Ralph Nader, former Senator Ribicoff, John Gofman, and their like have done their
work well, and the public is paying the price in its electric bills.

One often hears that in large-scale production of Pu we will be creating unprecedented quantities of a poisonous material. Because Pu is dangerous principally as an inhalant, we compare it in Table III with quantities of other poisonous inhalants produced in the U.S. We see that it is relatively trivial by
comparison.
Moreover, it should be noted that Pu is not easily dispersed whereas the others are gases and hence readily dispersible.
Of course, Pu released to the environment will last far longer than thesegases, which would be decomposed chemically, but recall from our earlier discussion that nearly all of the damage done in Pu dispersal is by the initial cloud of dust; all of the later resuspension and the thousands of years spent in the soil do far less damage.
It is thus not unfair to compare Pu with the poison gases, and we see from Table III that it will always be far less of a hazard.

TABLE III
Lethal Inhalation Doses Produced Annually in the
U.S. (x 10^12)
----------------------------------------------------------
Chlorine 400
Phosgene 18
Ammonia 6
Hydrogen cyanide 6
Pu if all U.S. power were from fast breeder reactors 1
----------------------------------------------------------

It is often argued that there is a great deal we do not know about Pu toxicity. While this may be true, one would be hard-pressed to name another public health issue that is as well understood and controlled.
Surely it would not be air pollution from burning coal, which is a million times more serious a problem.
Surely it is not food additives or insecticides or such [the dangers from these have also been greatly exaggerated] that may well be doing real harm to our health. Pu hazards are far better understood than any of these, and the one fatality per 300
years they may someday cause is truly trivial by comparison.

In spite of the facts we have cited here, facts well known in the scientific community, the myth of Pu toxicity lingers on.
The news media ignore us, and prefer to continue scaring the public at every opportunity.
They don't recognize the difference between political issues on which everyone is equally entitled to an opinion, and scientific issues, which are susceptible to
scientific investigation and proof.

The myth may linger forever....

----

Jean-Luc

27th December 2013, 10:12

In this beautiful 2011 one hour documentary on Chernobyl 25 years after the accident, nature seems to be doing fine and thriving in the exclusion zone. While the whole place has been left vacant in a post-apocalyptic scenery, scientists are shown to be following up how animals are coping with the radioactivity.

The commentary says how difficult it is to establish causal links between exposure to long term low radiation and risks on our health. There is a short description of this around min 36 (in the French version) : 4-6% of some rodents sibblings show slight birth defect, which is twice the rate of non radioactive zones. Pretty high.

However, for the rest nature seems to be coping rather well. Research on animal health is underway as of 2005.

Here is a short overview in captured pictures for your convenience. 24271

HD : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqkBV1FyL8I

HD , French version : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n74Nin71ik4

Kimberley

27th December 2013, 15:07

Unfortunately I have not heard back from Sunniva...perhaps she is away for the holidays...I will keep trying...

Thank you heyokah and Jean-Luc....

Kimberley

30th December 2013, 18:22

Ok I heard back from Sunniva Rose...I have never invited anyone to the forum so I will get in touch with some of the mods.

I am looking forward to hearing what she will have to say. :grouphug:

Date: December 30, 2013 10:02:32 AM EST

Hi Kimberley, and merry Christmas!
I have been very busy and that is why I have not responded - sorry about that!

I would really like to be part of your discussion forum, and I would love to be interwied.
Looking forward to hear more from you :)

Best wishes,
Sunniva Rose

Kimberley

30th December 2013, 20:55

I went through this whole thread looking for an audio interview With Ben Williams and Galen Winsor that was recorded a few weeks after Chernobyl and could not find it...I finally found it so posting it again here so I do not need to search for over an hour to find it again...Thanks.

http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/8618a.mp3

Kimberley

31st December 2013, 20:57

I do not remember seeing this article posted so posting it...it is over a year old, from Nov 2012. Very interesting!

The women living in Chernobyl's toxic wasteland

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9646437/The-women-living-in-Chernobyls-toxic-wasteland.html

Daphne

1st January 2014, 02:46

Great article about the Bubushkas. I now look at the blanket statements about all the people who died from radiation as brainwashing by the media. Thanks forosting this Kimberley.

Kimberley

1st January 2014, 06:19

Bubushka to me was a scarf that you wore on your head... Bubushka now to me has new meaning...how fun is that!!!!

And how fun to learn that the Bubushka women are still alive....

Live long and prosper to us ALL!!! :grouphug:

Daphne

2nd January 2014, 19:34

TargeT

3rd January 2014, 00:59

I just received my set of uranium glass beads from Ian Souter (thanks Ian!! Not sure that you were aware it was a fellow Avalonian who placed the order).
I got the 5 bead strand. I am wearing it now and notice a bit of pressure in my thyroid area. I have been diagnosed in the last year with a hyperthyroid disorder. Any thoughts? Normal?

if you have hyperthyroid you should tend to be thinner and a bit more jittery / energetic / possibly irritable or anxious (assuming you have symptoms, which I'd guess you do or you wouldnt have gone to a doctor.

the reverse of these symptoms should be observable (though I doubt it will be dramatic by any means, those beads are a very low dose, lower than most hormesis items are.)

hopefully you benefit from it, I"m not sure that the pressure is anything, perhaps you are just a bit more sensitive because you are focused on your new purchase.

Daphne

3rd January 2014, 02:22

Thanks TargeT. I do have those symptoms periodically, mostly controlled with cannabis oil. The beads are my first venture into hormesis. Just checking out the lower doses at the moment.

Kimberley

5th January 2014, 04:47

Ted talk by Holly Morris on her visit to the Chernobyl exclusion zone and her upcoming documentary on the Babushkas of Chernobyl (http://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com).

93hbqLBp_HI
Getting back to Japan, the following excerpt (from a 2012 article) summarises the prevalence of I-131 activity in the thyroid of examined individuals (46 of the 62 tested reported positive):

The thyroid equivalent doses assessed in this study were much smaller than the mean thyroid dose in the Chernobyl accident (which was 490 mSv in evacuees). Thyroid equivalent doses assessed assuming an ingestion pathway were similar to those found for inhalation. Even when either of the two intake pathways or their combination was assumed, no dose exceeded 50 mSv.
Source (http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/full/srep00507.html)

-- Pan

OMG Pan you did it again! Congratulations...this is amazing!!! Thank you!!!

It is amazing how we can all work together and gather the information

antinarcose

15th January 2014, 08:12

If you think radiation is a SCAM... This guy writes about how there are NO Atomic Bombs and that they are all fake..
Great reading!

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

jackovesk

15th January 2014, 08:29

Wouldn't have posted this Thread had I knew another thread had already been started on this subject...:noidea:

Bongo

15th January 2014, 08:39

jackovesk

15th January 2014, 08:50

This topic already exists here

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-

I'm surprised you haven't seen it... it is a year and a half old and it is a sticky in the General Discussion area

Well, obviously had I seen it I wouldn't have posted it again now would I Loony...:doh: :faint:

Bongo

15th January 2014, 09:27

778 neighbour of some guy

15th January 2014, 10:34

Thanks Jacko, just leave this thread as it is, maybe it brings more attention to the issue and the questions that come with it. Maybe this needs a fresh start, I don't have all that much confidence in the sincerity of reporting by VT, but at least it has got a lot of readers and that should count for something, maybe the people or forum members who previously were silent about this will now speak up and participate in this fresh thread.

Thanks again.

Here is another presentation by Galen.

x42qi7Fz1L0

The below video is also very interesting, and puts things in a better perspective.

qaEKfPlCL_4

About two minutes after posting my 2 cents on Jacko's thread it got merged with the Original Galen scam thread, something that is a bit curious imo, since a LOT of things get multiple threads and reposts, too bad this particular issue is being contained on this forum as well, I wonder why.

Kimberley

20th February 2014, 21:03

Ok for an update....I am still waiting to hear back from Sunniva Rose. I have heard from her a couple of times but she had not listened to Galen yet...

The Russian radiation women that Kerry Cassidy interviewed and several other people over a year ago or longer has a couple of new interviews.

qDsPzQ_blhs

This one is hard to understand, but if you listen closely it is worth the time. At the 10 minute mark they are asked about Fukashima.

Get ready to have your long held beliefs challenged once again, as Stewart and Janet Swerdlow interview the controversial and mind-blowing Irradia Couple. Discover why everything you have been taught about radiation is a lie, according to Ziria and Erkrieal, and how radiation can actually be beneficial to humankind. This is a "must see" interview!

HsCY18I6m1g

Enjoy! :grouphug:

Kimberley

19th March 2014, 21:24

ljwheat

19th March 2014, 22:10

It is so lonely in this thread...still waiting on Sunniva Rose. I am sure she will come to the surface one day. She just posted this on her FB page....

Click image to make it large if need be... :grouphug:

LMAO o’ my god this is to funny that means Bush, Coor’s, 25 hundred other company’s are pumping out more radiation than Fukashema , and has been for decades and we are still not dead. So I guess the west coast is getting the double whammy LOL, I guess the world is Still Flat. LMAO this is giving me a hernia. :pound:

Daphne

28th March 2014, 16:00

panopticon

28th March 2014, 17:04

ljwheat

29th March 2014, 16:26

I've been having some second thoughts about this Galen fellow and the truth of his claims.
Here is a link to a scientist studying wildlife in Chernobyl who has some different conclusions than the videos of wildlife in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-12/top-expert-debunks-radiation-myths

Second thoughts ? I think the hole point of Galen’s video was and is the evidence the NRC has changed the parameter’s to fit its own agenda in keeping free energy out of the general population of the world, with scare the hell out of people, so they will not look into this free energy.

And those who do like Iranian government may in fact spill the beans and give up the trade secrets on like fire its safe as long as you know what your doing.

Before the NRC they dropped two bombs on Japan, that released more toxic waste and radiation that a hundred Fuccashema’s or Chernobyl’s. then you have all the thousands of test explosions us Russia China Pakistan India on and on, so what ’s that add up to.

People who are scared of it, will look away when a nuclear blast ,, just one releases a thousand fold the radiation into the air we breath. Than any of these accidents ever could. NRC is working on the belief systems of the general world population. I even fell for it, but I am not a dumb rock, I have a brain, and the rock hard evidence presented by this thread has pointed this out numerous time’s.

It boils down to the official story, and who follow those story’s complacently to the letter, or some one who worked with this stuff like Galen -- before the NRC came along with the official story the world believes in.

There is no gray area here, your either awakened to the scam of governments,. Or trying to prove something you’ve always believed in.. (the Official story)

How many bombs have been set off since Japan at the end of world war II. And any one of those, should have wiped out the world population using the hype around Japan and Russia accidents.

The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1945 and 1992. Most of the tests took place at the Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands. Ten other tests took place at various locations in the United States, including Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico.

The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1949 and 1990. Most of them took place at the Semipalatinsk Test Site in Kazakhstan and the Northern Test Site at Novaya Zemlya. Additional tests were conducted at various locations in Russia and Kazakhstan, while a small number of tests were conducted in Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenia.

The UK has conducted 45 tests (21 in Australian territory, including 9 in mainland South Australia at Maralinga and Emu Field, many others in the U.S. as part of joint test series).

France conducted 210 nuclear tests between February 13, 1960 and January 27, 1996.

The People's Republic of China conducted 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground, all conducted at Lop Nur Nuclear Weapons Test Base, in Malan, Xinjiang)

India conducted between 5 and 6 tests, at Pokhran.

Pakistan conducted between 3 and 6 tests in response to the Indian tests.

On October 9, 2006 it was announced by North Korea they had conducted a nuclear test in North Hamgyong province on the northeast coast at 10:36 AM (11:30 AEST). There was a 3.58 magnitude earthquake reported in South Korea. There was a 4.2 magnitude tremor detected 240 miles north of P'yongyang. The low estimates on the yield of the test — potentially less than a kiloton in strength — have led to speculation as to whether it was a fizzle (unsuccessful test), or a genuine nuclear test at all.

There have been a number of significant alleged/disputed/unacknowledged accounts of countries testing nuclear explosives. Their status is either not certain or entirely disputed by most mainstream experts.

LOL I'm just guessing but would not this total release of radiation have killed us all by now, with this chyrnobal and fuccashema scary thinking.

ljwheat

3rd April 2014, 21:55

Also about the radiated water gushing into the ocean from Japan.. I have been drinking radiated water now for over a year. (no side effects) it takes at least 8 hours to charge a gallon , but once the source of the radiated water is removed it only take 3 hours for it to revert back to its normal state. And that’s if its not diluted, as it is when it is released into the environment like a Big Pacific Ocean.

Just to add a little point and bump this thread… :bump:

778 neighbour of some guy

7th July 2014, 13:31

Thanks Ilie, also for pointing out the typo, do you know when the thread got unstickied?

Ilie Pandia

7th July 2014, 13:39

Hi "778 neighbour of some guy",

It looks like on 1st of May 2014.

We have a limit on how may threads we keep sticky on each forum and so what happens is that some threads will become "unstuck" and others "stuck", as the information on the forum evolves.

I recommend you create a bookmark of this page so you can find it easily.

OK, back on topic. :)

TargeT

15th July 2014, 16:59

Absurd Radiation Limits Are A Trillion Dollar Waste

There are some easy decisions to make that will save us a trillion dollars and they could be made soon by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA could raise the absurdly low radiation levels considered to be a threat to the public across the regulatory spectrum.

These radiation limits would go from between 4 to 25 mrem (40 to 250 microSv) to more reasonable levels, like 500 to 5,000 mrem, depending upon the regulation and the particular office in EPA.

We have a patchwork of radiation-related statutes from those that apply to routine operation of nuclear power plants, and other fuel cycle facilities like nuclear waste repositories, found in 40 CFR 190 (Atomic Insights) to those in the EPA Protective Action Guides (Reason) that provide threat levels for evacuations in the case of a nuclear disaster like Fukushima or a dirty bomb attack. A dirty bomb, or radiation dispersal devise, is radioactive material dispersed in a populated area using ordinary explosives like a car bomb.

These possible regulatory changes have been triggered by the real threat of nuclear terrorism, and by the unnecessary evacuation of tens of thousands of Japanese after Fukushima, and hundreds of thousands of Belarusians after Chernobyl (Belarus Repopulating).

Unless you, the reader, are in a boat out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, you’re getting a radiation dose between 200 and 1,000 mrem/year in the United States, just from background sources such as rock, dirt, potatoes and cosmic rays (EPA Rad Limits). Some places in the world have background doses ten times higher than us. There have never been any observable health effects from these doses. Ever. Anywhere.

However, for reasons historic and political, the present radiation threat level established in 1977 by EPA was 25 mrem, well below background in any part of the world, except for said middle-of-the-ocean. These levels are not even as high as that in our food.

For a nuclear waste repository like Yucca Mt, it’s even more absurd. We have to make sure the dose to a distant drinking water well won’t exceed 4 mrem in the year 4000 A.D.

Keep in mind that we radworkers can get 5,000 mrem/year and think nothing of it. We’ve never had problems with these levels. Emergency responders can get up to 25,000 mrem to save human lives and property. I would take 50,000 mrem just to save my cat.

Therefore, using 25 mrem to force-evacuate New York City seems overly cautious.

This wouldn’t be bad if it didn’t have really serious social and economic side-effects, like pathological fear, significant deaths during any forced evacuation, not getting medical procedures you should have, shutting down nuclear power plants to fire up fossil fuel plants, and a trillion-dollar price tag trying to clean-up to levels even Mother Nature doesn’t care about (WSJ; Heartland).

Keeping to these present ultralow levels, and similar levels promulgated throughout our regulatory arena (Atomic Insights), has cost the United States about $500 billion since 1970, and will cost us a lot more in the years to come (Low-Level rad Summit). .....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/07/13/absurd-radiation-limits-are-a-trillion-dollar-waste/?fb_action_ids=305781242932732&fb_action_types=news.publishes

Kimberley

19th September 2014, 23:05

I am a bit late seeing your post Target...thanks...

TargeT

20th September 2014, 13:27

I just gave all my EmergenC away to a sick neighbor, I haven't gotten sick in over a year and a half now (normally I would get a "bug" once or twice a year) and my wife's toe nail fungus has cleared up (something she lived with for over 3 decades).

I tied my uranium ore necklace on so it physically can't come off.. haha, not that i'd want it to after these great benefits. :whoo:

TargeT

23rd April 2015, 17:14

Some people are still inquisitive and curious, despite the radiation fear campaign.

Strangely, they are treated as hero or mental patient almost equally.

The Woman Who Ate Chernobyl's Apples
CdhdCbDch6A
For the past couple of years, a young woman known only as “Bionerd23” has been making strange, dangerous videos in and around one of the most infamous nuclear zones on Earth—the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

Nothing is too radioactive or risky for her. She has shown herself getting injected with the radionuclide technetium, eating radioactive apples from a tree in Chernobyl, being chased by a possibly rabid fox, and picking up fragments of the nuclear plant’s reactor fuel with her bare hands. When a freakishly large catfish appears on camera, she calmly explains that it’s probably not a mutant—“They are just that way because nobody catches them,” she says in a video, watching a six-foot-long catfish, eerily like a shark, swim around a murky pool of water.
qf7n2kLubUQ
In a few non-Chernobyl-related videos, she pours liquid mercury over her bare hands, comparing the feat to smoking a single cigarette: not dangerous in limited doses, she claims. Her most popular videos are driven by a need to explain why things commonly seen as dangerous are in fact not, hence her typical lack of protective gear. It’s so odd to see her protecting herself, in fact, that she will begin some videos with an explanation about why she felt the need to don something as basic as a pair of gloves.

What is her secret? “Push away your fears and everything you've heard, and embrace the Zone,” she writes Atlas Obscura in an email.
j6mreZ98_Ug
While her style runs counter to many YouTube hosts (her flat affect can sometimes verge on robotic), Bionerd23 has become mildly famous in the various corners of the internet dedicated to radioactive spelunking. Since the spring of 2012, she has posted over 60 videos on YouTube documenting her trips in and around the plant, measuring radioactivity levels of various debris, as well as frequently experimenting on herself and measuring her own radioactivity. None have gone truly viral but they have not been ignored either: her more audacious Chernobyl stunts net somewhere north of 100,000 views, some twice that.
6kg4vVYKc90
Bionerd23 (as she wants to be known) might be German, or, at least, has spent a great of time in Berlin. She is a student, probably, though of what and where, I don’t know. Opening queries (who are you, where are you from, how did you get into this) went nowhere. “I don’t talk about that, because my person is entirely unimportant,” she wrote, “Nobody should adore a scientist, one should adore his or her work. The person is of no importance.” She posts frequently on a forum called Fusor, which has a section next to each post for basic information, including “real name.” She leaves this blank.

But her face and voice are well-known to the radioactive fan community. She is referenced in scattered blog posts around the internet, and also actively participates in the comments section underneath her videos, which has the effect of making them remarkably civil, for YouTube. Comments range from unexpectedly knowledgeable suggestions about how to chemically isolate graphite using nitric acid to fanfare like “You already have superpowers - you are an awesome, badass girl!!”

Chernobyl, at this point, is a kind of tourist destination (buses run through) but Bionerd23 pushes farther than most. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is huge, around 1,000 square miles emanating out from the site of the 1986 disaster. It is perfectly legal to enter the Zone, even to go very close to the reactor, though official visits are heavily regulated through government tour guides. Trespassing and poaching of animals, which include deer, bears, foxes, and various birds, are both illegal and common. Bionerd23 does not mention her legal status in any of her videos, but research in the Zone is popular and ongoing. “At first, it was just about the radiation, the contamination, measuring what is going on,” she wrote. “By now, it's a love for the place.”

Her speciality is unearthing bits and pieces of Chernobyl that would normally go unseen. A video titled “chernobyl 2013: radioactive ant bites & 115 mSv/h of pure gamma radiation” begins with this quote: “Oh, ****, yeah. This is hot.” She finds a fragment of uranium sitting in the grass a few kilometers from the reactor, “guarded by radioactive ants.” Dressed in military hues and armed with an array of blocky handheld sensors, she squats down, where ants promptly crawl into her (rarely wielded) gloves and bite her. The fragment of uranium immediately maxes out all of her sensors; she is not scared, but excited. She actually says, “Yay!”
aptV35As8jY
But her fears are not about radiation poisoning, nor developing cancer, but more about the simple structural damage in the Zone. “Some of the old buildings are rather unsafe to enter, as they are starting to fall apart,” she wrote, and also mentioned that she is quite scared of rabid animals. One popular video finds her fleeing a red fox that, in her mind, showed far too much comfort around humans. She ends up locking herself in a car and swearing.

Bionerd23’s risky ways have not gone unnoticed by YouTube commenters, who often ask why she risks her life to go tromping through a crumbling basement in the Zone. Frequently, she replies with a Marie Curie quote: "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.”

Her reasons for continuing to document Chernobyl are more personal, though. “If you've been there and experienced the zone as it truly is—a time capsule—you will understand,” she wrote. “Time stopped the moment the reactor blew, and I don’t just mean the readings on the clocks... And if you embrace it, you can understand the Zone's true meaning.”

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-woman-who-ate-chernobyl-s-apples

ljwheat

24th April 2015, 00:50

YUP ! Nice Work TargeT, getting all these Video's all lined up. Its going on two years now that i have been wearing a hot rock around my neck, plus drinking radiated water that's hot also.

David Hughes

16th September 2015, 11:54

TargeT

19th October 2015, 13:27

If genes thought to have a strong role in cancer prevention have been switched on in animals exposed to radiation, how does that translate to "benefit" exactly? Surely you want anti-cancer genes switched off if at all possible. Does the fact that they are being switched on not suggest that the bodies defence system is responding to a serious threat? Just because our body responds to an infection and helps us overcome it, doesn't mean that we should constantly encourage infections.

Let me throw out a few ideas then try to tie them together:

so every 7 years or so you are a completely new "you" all of your cells have cycled out by then (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/does-body-really-replace-seven-years.htm), we are CONSTANTLY growing and changing, and probability being what it is, every change (new growth cycle) has a chance of mutation.

at the same time, we know that stress (at moderate, or even moderately high levels) is good for us, in fact GREAT! Sure it makes us uncomfortable (sweating while we work out, etc..) and is something that by default we avoid; but the benefits are so widely know that we can consider it "common knowledge". (if I need to expand on this I will, but stress in any form is good for us, your immune system must be stressed to stay functional, muscle structure builds and improves with stress (exercise) and so does the skeletal structure (again exercise stress)).

we have entire industries that cycle around stressing your body. Cryo-therapy and even sensory deprivation are both good examples.

So, I don't think it's even a small step of logic to tie the two together.

Since you are constantly growing new cells, having anti-cancer genes activated via radiation exposure is probably the best thing that you could do for your self, especially in modern society were we "stress" our bodies beyond the point of moderation with processed foods, aluminum particles in our deodorant and sunscreen, daily chemical baths with SLS and other crap, unnatural work/rest cycles, etc....

anyway, that's sort of a rushed answer, let me know if it makes sense (I'm sure I'll come back and edit it for clarity later.. )

idiit

19th October 2015, 13:31

would like your thoughts on this article:

Have a wonderful radioactive weekend and remember to Dodge the Rads, it’s dangerous out there

Quote Your Radiation This Week No 26
By Bob Nichols on October 17, 2015
Oct 10 to Oct 17, 2015
(San Francisco) Oct 17 2015 – An unacknowledged nuclear event swept through the Upper Midwest in the United States in September 2015. No terrorist organization, nuclear capable corporation, government agency or organized military has taken credit for the event.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened: A powerful nuclear pulse was created somewhere in the upper Midwest and spread a radioactive wave front outward hundreds of miles across America’s Heartland. The pulse was recorded at the few active and published radiation stations with an unmistakable signature.

Bob Nichols

______________

(San Francisco) Oct 17 2015 – Good Day, this is “Your Radiation This Week.” These are the recorded Radiation Highs that affected people this week around the United States and in your neighborhood. You should compare the Rad numbers directly with YRTW No 24, the VT address is below. Let’s get right to it.

RADIATION CPM* COMPARISON CITY STATE

*Listed in Counts per Minute, a Count is One Radioactive Decay Registered by the Instrument.

Winter plain, clouds and sunset
Winter plain, clouds and sunset

All Radiation Counts reported are partial Counts. Uncounted types of radiation include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Neutron and X-Ray radiation. Uncounted radiation, if added, makes the actual Count higher and more dangerous.

The highest radiation reporting city is listed first, the least radioactive city reporting is listed last. Still, all reporting cities are above normal. These are the American cities that exceeded 1,000 CPM during the week Oct 10 to Oct 17, 2015 and their CPM Count.

I just could not overlook Washington DC at 372 CPM, not even a low for the District.

Normal Radiation is 5 to 20 CPM. [6]
1962 CPM, 392.4 Times Normal, Billings, MT Gamma, Beta.
1853 CPM, 370.6 Times Normal, Louisville, KY Gamma, Beta
1645 CPM, 329 Times Normal, Pierre, SD Gamma, Beta.
1545 CPM, 309 Times Normal, San Diego, CA Inactive 10 -15
1496 CPM, 299.2 Times Normal, Lexington, KY Gamma, Beta
1425 CPM, 285 Times Normal, Miami, FL. Gamma, Beta.
1422 CPM, 284.4 Times Normal, Portland, ME Last Reading
1393 CPM, 278.6 Times Normal, Navajo Lake, NM Gamma, Beta.
1355 CPM, 271 Times Normal, Mason City, IA Gamma, Beta.
1347 CPM, 269.4 Times Normal, Denver, CO. Gamma, Beta.
1311 CPM, 262.2 Times Normal, Rapid City, SD. Gamma, Beta.
1311 CPM, 262.2 Times Normal, Spokane, WA. Gamma, Beta.
1261 CPM, 252.2 Times Normal, Little Rock, AR Gamma, Beta.
1234 CPM, 246.8 Times Normal, Kansas City, KA, Gamma, Beta.
1228 CPM, 245.6 Times Normal, Fresno, CA Gamma, Beta.
1221 CPM, 244.2 Times Normal, Idaho Falls, ID Gamma, Beta.
1214 CPM, 242.8 Times Normal, Fresno, CA. Gamma, Beta.
1214 CPM, 242.8 Times Normal, Kearney. NE Dead Inactive Oct2015
1213 CPM, 242.6 Times Normal, Harrisburg, VA. Gamma, Beta.
1205 CPM, 241 Times Normal, New York City, NY Gamma, Beta.
1203 CPM, 240.6 Times Normal, Charleston, WV. Gamma, Beta.
1171 CPM, 234.2 Times Normal, Bakersfield, CA Gamma, Beta.
1166 CPM, 233.2 Times Normal, Tulsa, OK Gamma, Beta.
1159 CPM, 231.8 Times Normal, Concord, NH Gamma, Beta.
1145 CPM, 229 Times Normal, Bismark, ND. Gamma, Beta.
1130 CPM, 226 Times Normal, Worcester, MA. Gamma, Beta.
1121 CPM, 224.2 Times Normal, El Paso, TX. Gamma, Beta.
1121 CPM, 224.2 Times Normal, Tucson, AZ Gamma, Beta.
1116 CPM, 223.2 Times Normal, Memphis, TN Gamma, Beta.
1115 CPM, 223 Times Normal, Tallahassee, FL. Gamma, Beta.
1095 CPM, 219 Times Normal, Jefferson City, MO Gamma, Beta.
1088 CPM, 217.6 Times Normal, Champaign, IL Gamma, Beta.
1083 CPM, 216.6 Times Normal, Richmond, VA Gamma, Beta.
1081 CPM, 216.2 Times Normal, Atlanta, GA. Gamma, Beta.
1071 CPM, 214.2 Times Normal, Laredo, TX. Gamma, Beta.
1056 CPM, 211.2 Times Normal, Hartford, CT Gamma, Beta.
1030 CPM, 206 Times Normal, Wichita, KA. Gamma, Beta.
1029 CPM, 205.8 Times Normal, Riverside, CA. Gamma, Beta.
1028 CPM, 205.6 Times Normal, Phoenix, AZ Gamma, Beta.
1010 CPM, 202 Times Normal, Pittsburgh, PA, Gamma, Beta.
1009 CPM, 201.8 Times Normal, Oklahoma City, OK. Gamma, Beta.
372 CPM, 74.4 Times Normal, Washington, DC. Gamma, Beta.
Normal Radiation is 5 to 20 CPM. [6]
.
Highest Recorded Radioactive City in America this week
A familiar Leader in the race for the Most Radioactive Weather in America in September is Billings, Montana with 1,962 CPM down from 2,217 CPM last week. Congratulations to Billings, MT, again, as the Most Radioactive City in America for this week.

Forty-one (41) cities exceeded 1,000 CPM this week, up from Thirty-three (33) cities in Your Rad Weather two weeks ago. That is a new record High for this column. Stay Alert and take all appropriate precautions.

Changes

In September 2015 some unacknowledged source or sources around Lake Michigan spread measurable radiation all over the country. Like a Devil Wind it could be tracked for several weeks. Thousands of people know about it and no one is talking publicly.

German Analysis of Certain Isotopes after Meltdown in 1992

Hold on to your hat. In 1992 Germany calculated that in reactor meltdowns like Fukushima Daiichi the radioactive isotope Strontium 90 would aggressively poison the environment for 109.2 years and then decline slowly over the next 273 years. Of course, we will all be long dead by then. Other deadly Rad isotopes put Strontium 90’s generous life span to shame.

The German study is here for those brave enough to tackle it. Source: The IAEA: Dispersion of radionuclides and radiation exposure after leaching by groundwater of a solidified core-concrete melt by Bayer, A.; Tromm, W.; Al-Omari, I. (Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe (Germany)) from 8. International congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA8)

Isotope Count reporting

These CPM numbers do not represent the real radiation counts in your radiation weather for the week. The Rad is actually much higher (worse) than these government certified partial reports say. Use these report numbers as your Starting Point in adding up your daily, monthly and annual exposure from your Rad Weather.

Most radiation monitors report on the radioactive presence of Cesium 137 and Cesium 134 at the detector. YRTW will report on the secrets the Pros use in estimating the actual Total radiation counts. It is not a pretty picture.

The Lethality from a specific release goes up for 35 years; then the Lethality declines slightly and hangs steady for thousands of years. Regrettably, for all Normal Humans that is many generations. The end result, of course, is extinction of our species and all others on the planet. Everybody is included; no one is left out. I know of no variety of Humans immune to radiation.

Day One out of the reactor use a Cesium 137/134 CPM multiplier of 150 Times to get an approximation of the Total Rad. After 15 days outside the reactor the multiplier is still about 100 times the two similarly named Cesium Isotopes – Cesium 137 and Cesium 134. After 10 years have passed from that release, the Multiplier is Five Times the common published Cesium 137 report.

The Lethality is still increasing though. Yes, the Radiation is going down and the Lethality is going up at the same time for 35 years after a big release. That is a really hard to understand point about Your Rad Weather This Week. Each new major Rad release starts the Cesium countdown clock all over again, too. It gets … complicated with all the overlapping and the daily releases.

Here’s how you can calculate an estimate of your Total Rad today: Use a reported account of your Cesium 137 CPM and Multiply Times 5. Another way to say it is Cs137CPM X 5.0 = Your Total Radiation Estimate. That’s it. No magic. Just the facts as close as you can calculate it. Good Luck.

However, provided Cesium 134 is present you are experiencing a recent radioactive release and all bets are off. Why is that? Because the two Rad Isotopes decay at greatly different rates. The relatively long lived Cs 137 is half gone in 30.1 years. The shorter lived Cesium 134 is half gone in only 2.06 years. In addition, the amount of deadly Plutonium 239 is steadily increasing, even out of the reactor or exploded bomb. As a result the Multiplier changes very rapidly.

Radiation types commonly measured by radiation monitors include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Neutron and X-Ray radiation. Only Beta and Gamma are reported by the EPA and here on YRTW. The only thing they have in common is that they all kill you. There are also 1,944 more known individual Rad elements, only a few are ever mentioned in articles.

In short, the newer disaster’s Cesium 137/134 immediate radiation readings so conveniently echoed by official news outlets tell you right away by simple Multiplication how big the disaster really is. Think of it as the insider’s secret code. Multiply away!

How often do radioactive releases occur? The answer is: Radioactive releases occur daily in most reactors. This almost daily reactor Venting does complicate your health decisions and your estimated Rad readings. May you always have better Rad Weather; but, that’s not likely.

Isotope detectors
If you have a lot of money you can buy an Isotope detector that will tell you the name of isotopes it is tuned to detect. They are excellent tools for determining specific Rad elements. More power to you if you can afford one, or a group of you can pony up the Bucks to buy one. In this case knowledge is power. That kind of power can only be bought.

Without it, you have what the Pro-Nukers laughingly refer to in our lives as “A shortened life span.” That means the Pro-nukers are joyfully killing people these 70 years now since Hiroshima got Nuked by the United States; and, have no intention of stopping. I mean, after all, they get rich slaughtering us.

Public Domain Master-Sergeant Woods readies the Gallows at Nuremberg in 1946
Public Domain Master-Sergeant Woods readies the Gallows at Nuremberg in 1946

Jeeeez, where is Master Sergeant Woods, 3rd Army Hangman in WWII? We need him to hang these stainless steel Psychopaths and their political hirelings, all legal like.

Previous editions of YRTW
Five previous columns are at the end of each article. Each YRTW and all my previous Veterans Today columns are at http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/bobnichols/

Have a wonderful radioactive weekend and remember to Dodge the Rads, it’s dangerous out there
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10...is-week-no-26/

TargeT

19th October 2015, 14:29

would like your thoughts on this article:

An unacknowledged nuclear event swept through the Upper Midwest in the United States in September 2015. No terrorist organization, nuclear capable corporation, government agency or organized military has taken credit for the event.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened: A powerful nuclear pulse was created somewhere in the upper Midwest and spread a radioactive wave front outward hundreds of miles across America’s Heartland. The pulse was recorded at the few active and published radiation stations with an unmistakable signature.

Bob Nichols

______________

(San Francisco) Oct 17 2015 – Good Day, this is “Your Radiation This Week.” These are the recorded Radiation Highs that affected people this week around the United States and in your neighborhood. You should compare the Rad numbers directly with YRTW No 24, the VT address is below. Let’s get right to it.

RADIATION CPM* COMPARISON CITY STATE

*Listed in Counts per Minute, a Count is One Radioactive Decay Registered by the Instrument.

Winter plain, clouds and sunset
Winter plain, clouds and sunset

All Radiation Counts reported are partial Counts. Uncounted types of radiation include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Neutron and X-Ray radiation. Uncounted radiation, if added, makes the actual Count higher and more dangerous.

The highest radiation reporting city is listed first, the least radioactive city reporting is listed last. Still, all reporting cities are above normal. These are the American cities that exceeded 1,000 CPM during the week Oct 10 to Oct 17, 2015 and their CPM Count.

I just could not overlook Washington DC at 372 CPM, not even a low for the District.

Normal Radiation is 5 to 20 CPM. [6]
1962 CPM, 392.4 Times Normal, Billings, MT Gamma, Beta.
1853 CPM, 370.6 Times Normal, Louisville, KY Gamma, Beta

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10...is-week-no-26/

My first thought is to sigh (not because of you, its this topic.. haha).

the measurement of Radiation is (in my mind) purposefully confusing. Here is a breakdown of some of the different units:

CPM/DPM/Becquerels/Curies: measures number of radiations, regardless of type. CPM is slightly different in that it is dependent on the efficiency of the radiation detector, while the latter three are quantities of the actual radiation source.

Rad: A measure of absorbed radiation energy (Joules per Kg)

Roentgen (R): A measure of a combination of radiation intensity and energy (Coulombs per Kg)

REM (Roentgen equivalent man): same as R, but with a weighting factor depending on the radiation type (alpha/beta/gamma/neutron). This is the most common unit used in the US.
(more info on conversion here: http://www.radprocalculator.com/FAQ.aspx and another good tool: http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/radiation/rrmrem.html )

Here is an excellent chart showing what actual levels of radiation are and if you should be worried:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&p=519465&viewfull=1#post519465

SO, back to your post.

100 CPM is roughly = 1 usv (Microsievert) per hour which is so low it's not even worth measuring really.

So my thoughts on what you posted? FEAR PORN! the fact that they used the word "powerful" is pure emotional manipulation, these levels are so low that its comical to even mention them.

Its like saying you normally get hit by 1 drop of rain per day, but today you got hit by 3.. OMG A FLOOD MUST BE COMMING, or.. DID WE ALREADY DROWN?!

Its a complex topic which almost no one will self educate on, so they rely on these terribly written articles that toss out numbers which NO ONE understands (well, almost no one) and since the numbers "seem" big it scares people.

for example.. this is how they "explain" CPM:

*Listed in Counts per Minute, a Count is One Radioactive Decay Registered by the Instrument.

That sentence is so useless I don't even know why it was written in this context.

idiit

19th October 2015, 14:38

^ cool. thanks. :)

I stay open minded. I wasn't cowering under my blanket.

I like vt but no one gets it right every time including vt.

TargeT

19th October 2015, 14:55

^ cool. thanks. :)

I stay open minded. I wasn't cowering under my blanket.

I like vt but no one gets it right every time including vt.

my opinion of VT has slowly slid down to the point that I no longer read their articles, granted that's not a good idea (don't shoot the messenger etc...) but I see a lot of questionable stuff come from that site.

TargeT

2nd January 2016, 02:07

It's still a scam, and we are slowly seeing that the fear is baseless.

Original Research
Cancer mortality around U.S. nuclear power plants

Abstract

Introduction: There is concern about cancer risk from living near nuclear power plants (NPP). Different studies yield different results and this study seeks to add to the body of knowledge on the topic.

Methods: Using an ecological design, pair-wise comparisons were made for cancer death rates (CDR) in three county classifications for U.S. NPPs: counties where a NPP was located, counties that bordered the NPP counties, and remaining counties (not NPP counties and not border counties). For purposes of this study, the assumption was that different levels of any radiation released by NPPs would exist in these county classifications, as follows: most in the NPP county, second-most in border counties, and least in the remaining counties.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences between any of the paired comparisons (p>0.19).

Conclusion: The study did not find evidence that living near a nuclear power plant in the U.S. resulted in different cancer death rates among these county classifications. The lack of statistically significant CDR differences among the county classifications is likely related to there being essentially no difference in their radiation levels. However, the study is limited by the lack of inclusion of other cancer-related factors such as smoking rates. Since this is only a preliminary investigation, further study with other research designs is needed to verify this finding.
http://www.hoajonline.com/epidemiolrep/2054-9911/3/6

Swanette

24th April 2016, 21:54

THIS WILL BE TAKEN DOWN SOON ,

ejCQrOTE-XA

RNvmbyAd0VA

UEMKHi5YWGw

xoC0vIe8CKA

Galen Winsor died at the ripe old age of 88.

DNA

2nd May 2016, 09:54

This thread is indeed an eye opener.
A few of the youtube videos are gone, but you can go to youtube and find them if need be.
I found the dialogue here great, and I have been watching all of the videos available on youtube with Galen Winsor.

One of the clues to this being true for me is this.
Galen Winsor stated that spent Uranium disposal requires nothing in terms of the cost that is currently being spent to do so.
Also, Galen states that there is a dollar amount of $10,000,000 dollars per ton in 1982 of recoverable useable elements in the spent fuel.
This he states doesn't make sense that this amount of money is not only wasted, but then millions more being wasted with nuclear waste disposal overkill.

Now factor in that it's the Department of Energy that is said to own Area 51 and S4.
So there appears to be a black budget landing pad for all of this money to go to.
Further, it really seems that Nuclear Power plants seem to be possible fuel processing centers of fueling exotic possible off world ships.

This is really a worth while area of study.

ljwheat

2nd May 2016, 16:22

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them. since Veit Nahm i have run into people that have closed minds on many things , but one thing i have found is unless a person opens there mind and asks a question about what they hold as a truth no matter how it originally was set in place will hold fast there belief to the death. To see this take place here at Avalon gives me pause , i guess we are only human and since we can only exercise free speech and print , we can only hope these words will awaken those who still have a open mind, and a cause to keep humanity on a straight path in the mist of lies set in place by the controllers of this planet.:grouphug:

Since the video of Galen Winsor and using low dose radiation from http://www.nighthawkminerals.com/ I drink radiated water, have a hot rock around my neck , a mud pack a larger hot rock i use wear needed, cuts, buses,for the last three years. and i am still not glowing in the dark or burning myself up with all that radiation in and around me. Do your home work as we did, and maybe just maybe we can get past the lies of the NRC once and for all. i am free of all that fear they put in place back in the 50's.....:grouphug:

TargeT

8th October 2016, 16:46

Busy time out there, but this truth is still slowly leaking out.

Don’t Panic, But Your Avocado is Radioactive: Study Eyes Background Radiation of Everyday Objects
https://news.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hayes-radioactive-avocado-HEADER-992x558.jpg
Most people assume all radioactive materials are dangerous, if not deadly. But a new study on the radiation emitted by everyday objects highlights the fact that we interact with radioactive materials every day. The goal of the work is to give people a frame of reference for understanding news stories or other information about radiation and nuclear safety.

“We did this study because understanding how much radiation comes off of common household items helps place radiation readings in context – it puts things in perspective,” says Robert Hayes, an associate professor of nuclear engineering at North Carolina State University. “If people understand what trace levels of radiation mean, that understanding may help prevent panic.”

The researchers used a portable gamma radiation meter to measure the external gamma radiation emitted in a North Carolina home. The radiation was measured in microgray per hour (μGy/hr).

Avocados, for example, gave off 0.16 μGy/hr of gamma radiation – slightly less than the 0.17 μGy/hr emitted by a banana. Bricks gave off 0.15 μGy/hr, while smoke detectors (with their americium components) gave off 0.16. By way of comparison, natural uranium ore measured 1.57 μGy/hr.

“If you’re surprised that your fruit is emitting gamma radiation, don’t panic,” Hayes says. “The regulatory level for workers – which is safe – is exposure to 50,000 μGy per year. The levels we’re talking about in your household are incredibly low.”
https://news.ncsu.edu/2016/10/radioactive-avocado-2016/

araucaria

12th October 2016, 08:57

“If you’re surprised that your fruit is emitting gamma radiation, don’t panic,” Hayes says. “The regulatory level for workers – which is safe – is exposure to 50,000 μGy per year. The levels we’re talking about in your household are incredibly low.”
Well, let’s do the math. There are 8760 hours in a year. So the yearly figure translates to 5.7 µGy/hr every hour of the year (50,000/8760). Since 1 µGy/hr is produced by 6.66 bricks (1/0.15), that means that, absent bananas and avocados, permanent close contact with just 38 bricks will be enough to take you to the limit. It depends on how close you need to be, but the fact is that many people live in whole cities built of brick, so you don’t need to be a brick-layer to be exposed. Other building materials are probably no better, and clearly working on a banana plantation or a myriad other environments would not be without risk either.

Not quite sure what point I am trying to make :)

TargeT

12th October 2016, 12:24

Not quite sure what point I am trying to make :)

maths are fun?

LZXUR4z2P9w

"We're not in a clean energy revolution; we're in a clean energy crisis," says climate policy expert Michael Shellenberger. His surprising solution: nuclear. In this passionate talk, he explains why it's time to overcome longstanding fears of the technology, and why he and other environmentalists believe it's past time to embrace nuclear as a viable and desirable source of clean power.

I don't buy the "global warming" angle, but it's funny that even the "global warmers" are supporting nuclear...

DNA

12th October 2016, 13:51

I'm a fan of Galen Winsor, thanks for bumping this thread.

The original Galen video is down, here is one that is still working.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXG7h6kBOQ
LEXG7h6kBOQ

ThePythonicCow

12th October 2016, 16:42

TargeT

12th October 2016, 17:23

araucaria

12th October 2016, 18:44

Not quite sure what point I am trying to make :)
I read TargeT as saying that the per hour levels of radiation were incredibly lower than the per annum "safe" levels, and I read your post as calculating that they are about the same, once adjusted for the difference between an hour and a year.

I agree with your post, araucaria, and almost made a similar post last night myself :).

Who ever wrote that article doesn't even understand it (the different measurements of radiation) very well, I didn't notice until araucaria's post who's findings are even more supportive to the idea that the regulatory limits are ridiculously low.

What i learned: Don't sleep by bananas if you want to comply with government standards.
Yes. On reflection, I think I was saying we are safely absorbing a heck of a lot more radiation than is supposed to be good for us. If bricks and bananas are at this level, presumably glass and potatoes, wood and tomatoes are at similar levels. We have nowhere to go, and yet life expectancy so far has does nothing but rise.
Spoken as one who as a child was fairly closely downwind of the Winscale disaster, and more recently distantly downwind of the Chernobyl disaster, which French weather forecasters appeared to think would be stopped by border controls.

meat suit

7th November 2016, 18:31

an RT update on Fallujah....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vqiVEi472Y

TargeT

7th November 2016, 18:48

an RT update on Fallujah....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vqiVEi472Y

RT thinks we are stupid.

There wasn't a single piece of data in that 4 min video, no links to references, just some scary words... Was there a single number in that (other than dates)?

I won't stand for being spoon fed fallacious platitudes by news agencies anymore.

ikkibu

23rd May 2017, 14:08

delfine

24th May 2017, 18:01

48 of America’s nuclear power plants are leaking and there is no way to get rid of nuclear waste.

Here is a very interesting man who has a lot of different things to say about the matter, i find him to be a honest and sincere man.

A very interesting documentary for you guys:)

rMqHTbXm3rs

If radioactivity is so harmless, I wonder what Galen Winsor would have to say about "the radium girls":
http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/07/02/the-radium-girls-and-the-generation-that-brushed-its-teeth-with-radioactive-toothepaste/

ikkibu

25th May 2017, 00:45

If radioactivity is so harmless, I wonder what Galen Winsor would have to say about "the radium girls":
http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/0...e-toothepaste/ OK so why did he not get radiation sickness? the man swam and drank that water, please if there is any Avalon members with more insight please give us your take on it. I just feel my spidey senses tingling and something smells like Bull Sh¤¤, and heyyy what a bout the valuable end "HAZARDOUS WASTE" ... Maybe I am wrong? Then show me hard evidence, that's all i ask.

TargeT

25th May 2017, 14:07

If radioactivity is so harmless, I wonder what Galen Winsor would have to say about "the radium girls":

No one is insinuating that it is harmless, we are saying that radiation is just like everything else, too much is bad, the right amount improves health, too little is bad... everything is like this.

If radioactivity is so harmless, I wonder what Galen Winsor would have to say about "the radium girls":
http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/0...e-toothepaste/ OK so why did he not get radiation sickness? the man swam and drank that water, please if there is any Avalon members with more insight please give us your take on it. I just feel my spidey senses tingling and something smells like Bull Sh¤¤, and heyyy what a bout the valuable end "HAZARDOUS WASTE" ... Maybe I am wrong? Then show me hard evidence, that's all i ask.

Read through the 22 pages here, we discuss this in great detail.

From that radium girls link:
http://static.messynessychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/radioactivewater.jpg

These are sought after now, individuals following radiation hormesis use items like this still to this day with great results.

DNA

3rd February 2019, 02:44

Galen Windsor has caused me to re-evaluate how I view the nuclear paradigm.
I'm not saying I believe Galen hook line and sinker 100%, but I certainly take his position into consideration.
His points seem to make sense when looking at the bigger scenario.

If one is up for challenging a life long paradigm I suggest hearing Galen out and considering his point of view on this topic.

Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.

Galen Winsor has traveled and lectured all over America, spoken on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people … so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world’s most valuable power resource. Filmed by Ben Williams in 1986.

In the video, you can watch Galen lick a pile of highly radioactive uranium off the palm of his hand and ignite a chunk of plutonium into a shower of flaming dust. The guy also drank reactor cooling pool water for fun and liked to go swimming in the pool to relax. He also spiked the basement flooring of his own home with enough radioactive material to send any Geiger counter reading off the scale to disprove the fear mongering surrounding radon at the time.

Galen surmises the regulations and fear mongering that surround radioactive materials are in place to prevent the widespread adoption of nuclear power in local small scale neighborhood/home based reactors. Galen also points out that hot nuclear “waste” can be effectively turned into a safe power source through thermionic conversion, which is how the U.S. submarine navigation network was powered. The heat it gives off can also be used to safely heat homes.

He points out that nuclear “waste” is worth roughly $10 million (in 1986 dollars) a ton if it were to be reprocessed to collect its useful isotopes, so all of this talk about trying to bury it is a sham. He says the power companies are holding all the waste with the intent of playing the plutonium futures market. The “waste” could be stored above ground in already constructed buildings meeting all the regulatory requirements without the need to have these outrageous basalt mines dug into mountains. The only reason he can think of for these underground vaults is to hide bodies/evidence that the state doesn’t want uncovered.

At its core, he says federal controls over nuclear material is about maintaining power and control over the masses through the denial of self-sufficient power sources. Obviously if one had a personal sized power source that was cheap and efficient, they wouldn’t need to be connected to the “grid” for anything. The power grid is the control grid our rulers use to keep us under their thumbs.

He also says Three Mile Island was an intentionally created disaster, and that a core meltdown could not melt its way deep into the Earth.

TargeT

3rd February 2019, 09:00

Here’s what Galen Windsor understood about safe levels of radiation. The most accurate models of human toxicology use a “threshold” limit to set safe levels of exposure.

Which basically means our bodies have a natural ability of self-repairing and processing of toxic substances or damaged tissue. Anything below the threshold limit is safely processed by our bodies. Damage occurs only when the threshold is exceeded.

This mindset completely ignores the health benefits of radiation (at low levels).

I do not agree with it because those benefits are apparently so amazing (and I have personal anicdotal stories on this as well, as I wore a uranium ore neckless for 2 years and have not gotten an "annual sickness" like I used to for decades since).

Hormesis is real, and lately it's becoming very accepted.

ljwheat

3rd February 2019, 17:27

Quick update, I drink the radiated water, wear the necklace, use the mudpack, 24/7 over the last 5 years, only health, no ill effects, and I do not glow in the dark, no fungus has a chance /within this low dose radiation bubble I live in. and I still believe in Donald J Trump.

Webz Libri

6th February 2019, 06:35

All of this reminds me of when I was trained by the US Army NBC School (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) (any 54 Bravo's in here?) to test for this stuff at the live agent training facility in Alabama, we were up close and personal with radiac meters and testing radioactive items. When I was and NDT weld inspector, we were contracted to San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant to inspect some piping there... all the other guys were freaking out but I assured them that nothing there will kill them.

silvanelf

30th May 2019, 06:43

Marie Curie, who received the Nobel prize for pioneering research on radioactivity, died from exposure to radioactive substances. So much about your belief that "radioactivity is harmless."

It should be obvious that Galen Winsor is nothing more than a government psyop.

Curie visited Poland for the last time in early 1934.[14][71] A few months later, on 4 July 1934, she died at the Sancellemoz sanatorium in Passy, Haute-Savoie, from aplastic anemia believed to have been contracted from her long-term exposure to radiation.[47][72]

The damaging effects of ionising radiation were not known at the time of her work, which had been carried out without the safety measures later developed.[71] She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket,[73] and she stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the faint light that the substances gave off in the dark.[74] Curie was also exposed to X-rays from unshielded equipment while serving as a radiologist in field hospitals during the war.[56] Although her many decades of exposure to radiation caused chronic illnesses (including near-blindness due to cataracts) and ultimately her death, she never really acknowledged the health risks of radiation exposure.[75]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#Death

scanner

30th May 2019, 08:58

I have a vested interest in this, I live a quarter mile from a nuclear power station/plant. I myself, would not swim in any pools of nuclear water. Imho, we don't need nuclear power any more. There are alternatives, Wind, Solar and other substances. I live near to the largest wind power generators in the World, allegedly, in Morecambe bay UK. The Power station has had problems in the past and shutdown one of its reactors.

Nuclear power stations/plants, are just ticking time bombs, imho. If a natural, or man made disaster happens (War) etc, humans are in an ELLE event, because of greed and man's stupidity. Galen could be a psy-op and by the length of time his videos have been allowed to stay up, probably is. Stay calm swim in its pools is ok, message, doesn't hurt tptb messages. I recently watched a TV series of Chernobyl, well put together and well worth a watch, very scary, they are still dealing with the aftermath in Russia. Put the message out, through our positive energies, to wake up the greedy self servers of this Planet. If the plants go boom, no one survives not even them.

silvanelf

30th May 2019, 12:16

I recently watched a TV series of Chernobyl, well put together and well worth a watch, very scary, they are still dealing with the aftermath in Russia.

The Soviet Union's Secret Nuclear Disaster in 1957

Another nuclear waste disaster which is widely unknown. The second quote below says: "Within a few days, 300 of the village’s 5000 residents died of radiation poisoning." So much for the 'harmless' radioactive waste.

THE SOVIET authorities have released the first detailed account of a serious nuclear accident in 1957, at Kyshtym in the southern Urals, which followed an explosion in a huge concrete vessel containing high-level radioactive waste. The subsequent radioactive fallout contaminated 15 000 square kilometres of land and prompted the authorities to evacuate more than 10 000 people.

Although Western intelligence agencies knew of the incident, it was shrouded in mystery until a Soviet biologist, Zhores Medvedev, described the aftermath of the catastrophe in an article in New Scientist 13 years ago (4 November 1976, p 264). The USSR did not acknowledge the accident officially until six months ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12316761-000-soviet-union-comes-clean-on-nuclear-blast/

On September 29, 1957, one of the Mayak plant’s cooling systems failed. No one noticed until it was too late. A waste tank exploded, sending a cloud of radioactive material into the air, which fell over an area of 20,000 square kilometers. Though 270,000 people lived there, only 11,000 were evacuated (and that took up to two years to accomplish). Those who remained were pressed into service to clean up the debris by destroying contaminated crops and livestock. They worked without protection from radiation, and then they went back to their homes.

The Soviet reaction was a puzzle to many of the peasants who lived near the Mayak plant. In the village of Korabolka, farmers thought a global nuclear war had begun when they saw the explosion. Within a few days, 300 of the village’s 5000 residents died of radiation poisoning. An evacuation was planned, but only ethnic Russians were relocated. The remaining half of the village were ethnic Tatars, who were left in place. In the more than 50 years since, many villagers are convinced they were left as an experiment. The cancer rate for Korabolka, now called Tatarskaya Korabolka, is five times that of an uncontaminated village. Other villages around the region report elevated rates of cancer, genetic abnormalities, and other illness.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/71026/kyshtym-disaster-largest-nuclear-disaster-youve-never-heard

Those who live along the river, they say, have cancer at rates 3.6 times higher than the national average, and suffer 25 times more from incidence of birth defects than in other places in the country. Miscarriages continue to climb, and children carried to term are born with malformed limbs and organs. Many of the remaining adults suffer from lymph node swelling so severe that their words are unintelligible to visiting physicians. The strontium 90 flowing through the river, the doctors have concluded, has settled into the population’s bones.

https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-10-the-worst-nuclear-disaster-youve-never-heard-of-celebrates-its-60th-birthday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GNSer8T6TA

DNA

2nd March 2022, 11:29

muxfolder

4th March 2022, 10:23

I'm bumping this thread.
It's March 2, 2022. The world is looking like there could be a number 2 dropped at any moment. As such I'm posting this in hopes that folks don't completely lose hope.
Please watch this video.
I personally believe there to be a lot of truth to this
Obviously you don't want to be at ground zero or in the immediate fall out.
Every precaution should be made to be as far from a potential blast zone as possible.
But if Galen is correct here it would offer quite a bit of hope.
In that spirit I would encourage folks to expose yourself to this information.

This reminds me of the 80's when I was a kid. People got used to it and it was over when Soviet Union broke apart. And now we are again in the same situation only there are so many other countries with nukes. Let's hope there's not going to be a nuclear war in our lifetime. Peace. :highfive:

TargeT

12th January 2024, 21:09

Hormesis is real, and lately it's becoming very accepted.

Interesting testimony...
1745870690438496674

Food is medicine, radiation is medicine, EVERYTHING (at the right dose) is good for you! But are you getting everything?

1745787629663289416