Mountain Lion deformity in Idaho

[lucidity]

I suspect this means that radioactivity levels in the area are
much higher than officially admitted.

https://www.rt.com/usa/328449-mountain-lion-teeth-forehead/

[Sunny-side-up]

I would guess it's more likely to be directly caused by some kind of air born testing.
The results, problems of which are now becoming seen!

[kirolak]

Poor creature, did they have too kill her?!

[lucidity]

Poor creature, did they have too kill her?!

Yes, poor creature.
I don't think they did have to kill her... it's hunting season.
I think some people just like killing things.

[DeDukshyn]

I suspect this means that radioactivity levels in the area are
much higher than officially admitted.


Not necessarily. 1 in 500 human births is to a "polydactyl" -- radiation? Not likely. Can anyone with a decent Geiger counter get us readings in the area? Not hard to find out ... I assume this is just one of those general genetic defects where the afflicted actually lived into adulthood, which is very rare.

[lucidity]

I suspect this means that radioactivity levels in the area are
much higher than officially admitted.


Not necessarily. 1 in 500 human births is to a "polydactyl" -- radiation? Not likely. Can anyone with a decent Geiger counter get us readings in the area? Not hard to find out ... I assume this is just one of those general genetic defects where the afflicted actually lived into adulthood, which is very rare.

I guess you know that radiation causes genetic mutations, right ?
And that these mutations (as well as cancers and tumors) typically
cluster in the vicinity of, for example, nuclear power plants.
I guess you know that too.

So when you say "Not necessarily" ... What are you thinking ?

There's a section on veteranstoday.com where they publicise recent radiation readings for the USA.

Also,
(1) the official radiation data in the USA have been several times criticised as inaccurate and too low.
(2) I think i saw a news report recently that the USA are going to *stop* publicising this data

I think (1) and (2) are the reason that veteranstoday.com started publicising their own radiation data.

be happy

lucidity

[Fairy Friend]

This looks like a conjoined twin that, when one twin dies is partly reabsorbed by the other twin. Based on the 2 pictures it has jaw, whiskers and teeth and I think I see gum tissue. A teratoma can produce teeth, hair but no higher structure like a jaw. I have seen both (conjoined twins that have been reabsorbed and teratomas that can produced teeth or hair) up close and personal. Can be caused by radiation exposure but also many many toxins can cause this, viruses and also occurs randomly in populations. Many snakes are born with 2 heads but survival after birth is much lower.

Cats are predisposed to Diprosopus which is caused by an over-expression of the sonic hedgehog (Shh) gene that plays a role in organizing midline structures of the brain (among other things). Again because of brain and eating disorders they often don't survive. Only recently have I learned they are calling them Janus cats after the 2 faced Roman god. They still show a lot of facial symmetry, so my bet is on a conjoined twin. Many records of these kinds of cats being born throughout history.

[DeDukshyn]

I suspect this means that radioactivity levels in the area are
much higher than officially admitted.


Not necessarily. 1 in 500 human births is to a "polydactyl" -- radiation? Not likely. Can anyone with a decent Geiger counter get us readings in the area? Not hard to find out ... I assume this is just one of those general genetic defects where the afflicted actually lived into adulthood, which is very rare.

I guess you know that radiation causes genetic mutations, right ?
And that these mutations (as well as cancers and tumors) typically
cluster in the vicinity of, for example, nuclear power plants.
I guess you know that too.

So when you say "Not necessarily" ... What are you thinking ?

There's a section on veteranstoday.com where they publicise recent radiation readings for the USA ..

Here's what I am thinking ...

Vast majority of genetic mutations are NOT caused by radiation.

Maybe this cougar was shot near a nuclear power plant? ... but it was shot in the mountains of Idaho -- pretty sure there's no nuclear power plants around there ...

While I am no fan of Veteran's today, in order to make a connection, perhaps you or someone could look at the radiation levels in the Idahoan mountains and see if there could be any correlation. As it stands, I see zero evidence of any correlation with this defect and radiation. Maybe the mountains there are full of extreme radiation ... I don't know, but I have not been presented with any evidence that would make me believe so.

[TargeT]

Grammar is very important.




I guess you know that radiation causes genetic mutations, right ?

radiation CAN cause genetic mutations (because it damages us, and any time we are damaged and repair there is a chance of mutation... ANY time.. even a cut!)

if "radiation causes genetic mutations" then we'd all be genetically mutated beyond recognition... "radiation" is a hugely broad term.


And that these mutations (as well as cancers and tumors) typically
cluster in the vicinity of, for example, nuclear power plants.
I guess you know that too.

Actually they don't, generally the areas around nuclear power plants do not see any impact from the plant what so ever.




There's a section on veteranstoday.com where they publicise recent radiation readings for the USA.

Also,
(1) the official radiation data in the USA have been several times criticised as inaccurate and too low.
(2) I think i saw a news report recently that the USA are going to *stop* publicising this data

I think (1) and (2) are the reason that veteranstoday.com started publicising their own radiation data.

be happy

lucidity

They can publish their data all they want, but do you understand it?

What is 1 curie? what is 1 rad ? What scale are the measurements in? (I'll bet its picocurrie,, or 1 billionth of a curie).

Do you know why there are so many different "types" of measurements?

This is a very complex subject, until you can confidently answer all of these questions I would not presume to understand what "numbers" are tossed my way... they could be (AND ARE!) such a small measurement that it's not worth paying attention to.


Maybe the mountains there are full of extreme radiation ... I don't know, but I have not been presented with any evidence that would make me believe so.

Mountains tend to be a bit more radioactive; but we are still talking levels that are so low that when you compare numbers they make a smoke detector look dangerous (those have thorium in them BTW...).

[lucidity]

And that these mutations (as well as cancers and tumors) typically
cluster in the vicinity of, for example, nuclear power plants.
I guess you know that too.

Actually they don't, generally the areas around nuclear power plants do not see any impact from the plant what so ever.


Forgive me but... You're talking nonsense.
It's very well established that a variety of cancers have clustered around nuclear power plants.
Probably, the clusters occur N number of years after they've had some kind of contaminant leak.

Try googling "Leukemia cluster nuclear power plant"

You'll find there are have been recognised clusters around nuclear power plants in
UK, Germany and France.... and of-course Ukraine (remember Chernobyl ?)
And wasn't there a spike of cancers around 3 Mile Island ?
(Try googling "3 mile Island Cancer")

be happy

lucidity

[TargeT]

And that these mutations (as well as cancers and tumors) typically
cluster in the vicinity of, for example, nuclear power plants.
I guess you know that too.

Actually they don't, generally the areas around nuclear power plants do not see any impact from the plant what so ever.


Forgive me but... You're talking nonsense.
It's very well established that a variety of cancers have clustered around nuclear power plants.
Probably, the clusters occur N number of years after they've had some kind of contaminant leak.

Try googling "Leukemia cluster nuclear power plant"

OK... first link was:

Nuclear power plants cleared of leukaemia link

Investigation of cancer clusters should turn to non-radiation causes, say British researchers.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110506/full/news.2011.275.html




That's not what I found at all ;)



I wore a piece of polished uranium ore around my neck for about 2 years... I haven't worn it for about 6 months... still haven't gotten sick... that's very anecdotal, but it's enough to sell me on radiation hormesis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiations_at_low_doses.gif

Alternative assumptions for the extrapolation of the cancer risk vs. radiation dose to low-dose levels, given a known risk at a high dose: supra-linearity (A), linear (B), linear-quadratic (C) and hormesis (D).

we have threads on Avalon specifically about radiation & how the regulatory restrictions and warnings are mostly non-sense.... this is another one of those things that EVERYONE "knows" is one way, but it's actually almost completely the opposite (ie: radiation is really good for you at low levels)

[GrnEggsNHam]

And that these mutations (as well as cancers and tumors) typically
cluster in the vicinity of, for example, nuclear power plants.
I guess you know that too.

Actually they don't, generally the areas around nuclear power plants do not see any impact from the plant what so ever.


Forgive me but... You're talking nonsense.
It's very well established that a variety of cancers have clustered around nuclear power plants.
Probably, the clusters occur N number of years after they've had some kind of contaminant leak.

Try googling "Leukemia cluster nuclear power plant"

You'll find there are have been recognised clusters around nuclear power plants in
UK, Germany and France.... and of-course Ukraine (remember Chernobyl ?)
And wasn't there a spike of cancers around 3 Mile Island ?
(Try googling "3 mile Island Cancer")

be happy

lucidity

I'm pretty sure this used to be a stickied thread in the general discussion forum and the video it's referencing is very informative. Please take the time to absorb this information.
A video they won't want you to see (Galen Winsor: nuclear scare scam) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&p=513238&viewfull=1#post513238)

[Sunny-side-up]

The who we are, is all because of mutations, we are mutations.
Those mutations that didn't work, say 'teeth on the forehead' died off.

I think most of our mutations as illnesses are caused by pollutants in the Air, the food, the water, medical-med's/treatments, a lot of which might have needed some Rad to trigger them, but that might only have been from natural sources!

[TargeT]

we are mutations.

Well.....


Startling new finding: 600 million years ago, a biological mishap (Mutation) changed everything
If life is effectively an endless series of photocopies, as DNA is transcribed and passed on from one being to the next, then evolution is the high-stakes game of waiting for the copier to get it wrong.

Too wrong, and you’ll live burdened by a maladaptive mutation or genetic disorder. Worse, you might never live at all.

But if the flaw is wrong in exactly the right way, the incredible can happen: disease resistance, sharper eyesight, swifter feet, big brains, better beaks for Darwin’s finches.

In a paper published in the open-access journal eLife this week, researchers say they have pinpointed what may well be one of evolution’s greatest copy mess-ups yet: the mutation that allowed our ancient protozoa predecessors to evolve into complex, multi-cellular organisms. Thanks to this mutation — which was not solely responsible for the leap out of single-cellular life, but without which you, your dog and every creature large enough to be seen without a microscope might not be around — cells were able to communicate with one another and work together.

Incredibly, in the world of evolutionary biology, all it took was one tiny tweak, one gene, and complex life as we know it was born.

“It was a shock,” co-author Ken Prehoda, a biochemist at the University of Oregon, told The Washington Post. “If you asked anyone on our team if they thought one mutation was going to be responsible for this, they would have said it doesn’t seem possible.”

The discovery was made thanks to choanoflagellates — tiny balloon-shaped creatures that are our closest living unicellular cousins — and a cool bit of evolutionary time travel known as ancestral protein reconstruction, which allows scientists to resurrect the genomes of long-dead creatures based on their modern descendants’ DNA.

In this case, the reconstruction took Prehoda and his colleagues back about 600 million years, when ancient beings no bigger than a single cell swam through vast shallow seas covering what are now continents. There’s pretty much no fossil record from this period — what kind of fossil could be left by something smaller than a pinhead? — so insights into life at that time rely on researchers’ imaginations and intense scrutiny of modern DNA.
For this, the choanoflagellates were perfect. They’re single-celled organisms, but they occasionally work together in groups, swimming into a cluster with their flagella (tails) pointing outward like the rays of a sun. At the most basic level, this coordination helps the choanoflagellates eat certain kinds of food. But it’s also an example of individual cells coming together to work as one unit, kind of like — hey! — a multi-cellular organism.

Prehoda and his colleagues began to look into what genes could be responsible for allowing the choanoflagellates to work together.

“We were expecting many genes to be involved, working together in certain ways, because [the jump to multi-cellularity] seems like a really difficult thing to do,” he said.

But it turned out that only one was needed: A single mutation that repurposed a certain type of protein. Instead of working as enzymes (proteins that facilitate reactions inside the cell) the proteins were now what’s known as an interaction domain. They could communicate with and bind to other proteins, a useful skill for cells that have decided to trade the rugged individualist life for the collaboration of a group. In the wild world of pre-complex life, this development was orders of magnitude better than Twitter for getting organisms organized. Every example of cells collaborating that has arisen since — from the trilobites of 500 million years ago to the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and you — probably relied on it or some other similar mutation.

That protein domain is now present in all animal genomes and their close unicellular relatives, according to a University of Oregon release. It’s probably wiggling around in you right now, helping your various cells keep in touch.

But the discovery of the protein offers more than just a history lesson, the researchers say. It may also have ramifications for modern medicine.

Cancer and many other diseases, Prehoda explained, can in some ways be thought of as cells that forgot that they’re part of a multi-cellular being and have stopped communicating or taking directions from the body they belong to. If that’s the case, then understanding what equips a cell with the proteins to communicate might help suss out why they stop.“That’s a very different paradigm for thinking about diseases like cancer,” Prehoda said. “It could allow us to think about new ways to develop therapies by focusing on genes that are involved in this unicellular to multi-cellular process.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/startling-new-discovery-600-million-years-ago-a-single-biological-mistake-changed-everything/