The texture would be all wrong. Vigorous steaming would be required.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/02/he...-above-normal/

So what does this all mean for California? The United States? The world?

Conspiracy theory post from man who's got a killshot avatar? Yawn.

At least you could respond with a legitimate response. I'll take it as you're not very bright, but continue on.

Did you read anything else on that site? Is there any reason to believe this is any kind of reputable source? As far as I can tell it's just lunacy.

That is for you to decide. I will not force something upon you. I am just allowing you to discuss. Why do they allow non organic food in stores? Why do they allow fluoride in toothpaste, water, etc...Call it conspiracy all you want, but I know my facts and research. If you have a disbelief in the source, do the research find out for yourself. I know first hand I have ties with people who have been researching the case.

These are sites that are lunacy, http://www.cnn.com/, http://www.foxnews.com/....nothing nothing but rich dudes playing rich dudes telling the middle class to blame the poor.

Here is another link showing you some nuclear tests your government has done and likes to blame the overpopulated instead of themselves...http://www.vizworld.com/2009/12/visu...ar-detonation/



People wonder why the cancer rate is rising.

And an even dirtier longer used filter would be even worse. It means nothing really. A filter would never have less or equal to background because a filter collects dust particles and other radioactive nuclei carried by the atmosphere that finally settle in the filter. The more you use it without cleaning the higher the concentration of radioactive material it collects. Its absolutely logical, especially after an event like Japan's but even without due to prior events for decades.

Try this for a real scientific analysis without the conspiracy bs.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling


If you tested the vacuum cleaner filter or the trash it collects in the bag you would also detect higher levels than the background! Hello! Anybody home? It doesnt mean that the atmosphere out there is 5 times more radioactive than it was 1 year ago today. It just means that whatever the air has the filter collects additively over time until its concentration becomes large enough to be seen as a potent signal.

The only objective analysis possible using filters would require to have tested one used for the same amount of time in the same location 5 years ago or 2 years ago and compare the 2. Even then a larger measurement on the second filter would still not imply a disaster, only hint of a larger concentration of isotopes in the atmosphere the second time around. To make any argument one simply needs to collect air samples, water samples, milk, soil etc and see what we have there and compare with past values years ago. Until one does that, filters will be unable to tell you anything unless you have recorded properly how they were used and can compare with past ones. They simply reflect with their high readings the fact that radioactive isotopes in the air are found in a filter at much higher concentration (density). Its not just radiation, if you checked other chemicals they would be higher too.

Think of it like that. You have a water filter that clears your water to drink and after a year you open it and it has deposits of salts in it. Well of course those deposits are far denser than they would be in say 1 liter of water. They are the accumulated result of thousands of liters over time. The more you use it the higher the measurements too. It wont mean your water recently is bad , it means that the filter has accumulated material for a long time. Now bring me a filter that has double the concentration after 1 year of usage than it had say 2 years ago (again used for a year) and it will mean something about the relative increase in isotopes from past. They still can however be not a concern in general. Many elements are found after last spring that are many times over their historical values locally. But why is that a big deal if say something is 1 part in a billion and now its say 5 but its total contribution to your body is still less over a year than 10 min of flight. Thats why you measure absolute contribution in samples rather than ratios of past concentrations of particular rare isotopes. That last one can be many times larger than 1 without the absolute contribution to total background radiation to even increase it by 0.01%.

They keep raising the requirements of what is safe to be in the atmosphere, are you aware of this?

I appreciate the logical response though, first one to do so.

I am not standing behind the claim of 500% increase...but we have received fallout from fukushima and to claim we have not is silly

Sir do not let science stand in the way of your "facts"! You are doing the right thing here! As Bill Murray said eons ago on SNL "That's true, you're absolutely right" on this!

Look at the Berkeley team results. They have the proper picture and have been monitoring close to a year soon. They are objective and describe what they do and of course they do not belong to any government conspiracy to coverup, they are graduate students and professors that got a chance to use their fancy supersensitive equipment and test all kinds of things. The situation is bad in Japan near the site and the releases to the ocean too locally. But on a large planetary scale picture the effect is not as severe. Wont even increase annual dosage for US citizens by even 20% (and likely far less than that even) after all is said and done. Their food samples and water samples never looked alarming to me since i have been following last spring. Follow their timeline of testing to see what i mean. They have very sensitive equipment.

Lock and ban please. This is a science, math, and philosophy forum, not "post your whacked out conspiracy theory" forum.

As for fluoride, they allow it in toothpaste and water because the scientific evidence is overwhelming that fluoride is both beneficial and not harmful at the amounts present in these sources. Pretty much the same reason they allow salt and thiamin to be added to food.

Now tell me about organic food? You seem so wise.

is 5X the normal levels in california even considered dangerous by whatever standards exist?

Good, you've proven you're here for nothing but trolling. Now you can get banned for good.

I'm done responding to you. One or two responses in here were considered actually responses...the others were just slanders calling me a conspiracy theorist.

Slander is spoken, you're thinking of libel. And it's only libel if it's not true. I'd be happy to take my chances in court.

This is a couple of posts i wrote in response to a thread that was deleted instead of properly moved here to be discussed as a topic that may be "outer limits" but nevertheless requires a response to obtain a healthier perspective about a sensitive radiation issue due to recent events last year in Japan. Its no different than someone posting a mathematical claim that has a logical error that needs to be pointed out. Why does one have a place and the other doesnt?

I protest and do not appreciate at all the removal of posts i took time to write as if they are garbage. Zeno can and should do better than this style that often passes as abusive and totalitarian frankly. There are severe ethical violations taking place all the time in the threads with people abusing each other and posting malicious content lacking any civility and he has no participation in stopping them and often rather ridiculous issues pass for threads that survive without deletion including homework that never finds it proper place elsewhere. Oh but this has to be deleted instead of properly treated? I realize his work is demanding with the posts volume and everything but i do not exist here to write and have my posts removed without them deserving so. Otherwise i will be super glad to stop posting for good. I offered a reasonable explanation to a claim made that is necessary to exist so that people can talk about such sensitive issues with better perspective, instead of falling victims to improper arguments about radiation.

A position that is wrong and pseudoscientific deserves proper handling not silencing.

Otherwise Zeno and anyone here will find out that i have ways to start threads that are totally proper and impossible to delete without destroying the integrity of the forum, that produce answers to deleted threads as if they are original legitimate inquiries. Nobody can claim its not a scientific concern to ask for example what is the expected radiation (activity) levels of a particular air filter as function of the concentration of various isotopes in the atmosphere and the duration of usage as filter.


here are the deleted parts i managed to save;


By 1ns71nct

hepa-air-filters-california-recorded-radiation-levels-538-above-normal-1162092

http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/02/he...-above-normal/

So what does this all mean for California? The United States? The world?


My posts i managed to preserve next;




And an even dirtier longer used filter would be even worse. It means nothing really. A filter would never have less or equal to background because a filter collects dust particles and other radioactive nuclei carried by the atmosphere that finally settle in the filter. The more you use it without cleaning the higher the concentration of radioactive material it collects. Its absolutely logical, especially after an event like Japan's but even without due to prior events for decades.

Try this for a real scientific analysis without the conspiracy bs.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling


If you tested the vacuum cleaner filter or the trash it collects in the bag you would also detect higher levels than the background! Hello! Anybody home? It doesnt mean that the atmosphere out there is 5 times more radioactive than it was 1 year ago today. It just means that whatever the air has the filter collects additively over time until its concentration becomes large enough to be seen as a potent signal.

The only objective analysis possible using filters would require to have tested one used for the same amount of time in the same location 5 years ago or 2 years ago and compare the 2. Even then a larger measurement on the second filter would still not imply a disaster, only hint of a larger concentration of isotopes in the atmosphere the second time around. To make any argument one simply needs to collect air samples, water samples, milk, soil etc and see what we have there and compare with past values years ago. Until one does that, filters will be unable to tell you anything unless you have recorded properly how they were used and can compare with past ones. They simply reflect with their high readings the fact that radioactive isotopes in the air are found in a filter at much higher concentration (density). Its not just radiation, if you checked other chemicals they would be higher too.

Think of it like that. You have a water filter that clears your water to drink and after a year you open it and it has deposits of salts in it. Well of course those deposits are far denser than they would be in say 1 liter of water. They are the accumulated result of thousands of liters over time. The more you use it the higher the measurements too. It wont mean your water recently is bad , it means that the filter has accumulated material for a long time. Now bring me a filter that has double the concentration after 1 year of usage than it had say 2 years ago (again used for a year) and it will mean something about the relative increase in isotopes from past. They still can however be not a concern in general. Many elements are found after last spring that are many times over their historical values locally. But why is that a big deal if say something is 1 part in a billion and now its say 5 but its total contribution to your body is still less over a year than 10 min of flight. Thats why you measure absolute contribution in samples rather than ratios of past concentrations of particular rare isotopes. That last one can be many times larger than 1 without the absolute contribution to total background radiation to even increase it by 0.01%.


Look at the Berkeley team results. They have the proper picture and have been monitoring close to a year soon. They are objective and describe what they do and of course they do not belong to any government conspiracy to coverup, they are graduate students and professors that got a chance to use their fancy supersensitive equipment and test all kinds of things. The situation is bad in Japan near the site and the releases to the ocean too locally. But on a large planetary scale picture the effect is not as severe. Wont even increase annual dosage for US citizens by even 20% (and likely far less than that even) after all is said and done. Their food samples and water samples never looked alarming to me since i have been following last spring. Follow their timeline of testing to see what i mean. They have very sensitive equipment.


See also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA

twoplustwo.com/55/about-forums/request-my-thread-smp-deleted-1162170/

I'm with you bro

You cant trust anyone here. Have you seen they've even come up with a cunning way to try to convince us that Brussell Sprouts dont make us levitate?

OP of the non-existing thread:
You have to be careful what you post in The S M P

Is there anything in quantum physics theory that could lead to the possiblity of a person's individuality (their specific energy, force, etc.) to continue to exist after the human body dies?

No.