Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #583394 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-06 13:57 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-06-09 09:50 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 83 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 13:57 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-06 18:38 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-06 18:04 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-06 22:42 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-06 22:14 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 04:20 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 10:02 +0200
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:25 +0200
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 07:57 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:00 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:56 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 08:16 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 14:24 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 14:42 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 15:10 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-07 13:45 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 18:05 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 14:39 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 13:59 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 16:00 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 16:48 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 18:10 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 19:24 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:48 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 20:08 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 00:21 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 20:41 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 00:58 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 21:13 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 01:27 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 22:20 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 01:10 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 06:01 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 09:36 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 18:38 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 14:18 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:44 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 16:59 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:10 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:35 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 22:55 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:37 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:23 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 02:49 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:52 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 16:25 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:38 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:17 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 16:45 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 23:05 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 20:00 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 21:22 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:04 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 19:51 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 00:29 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 20:53 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 01:45 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 22:10 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 06:12 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-08 11:35 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 18:45 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-07 14:48 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:10 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-07 21:39 -0400
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 06:14 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 10:21 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:07 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 14:31 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 14:43 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 16:19 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 15:21 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:13 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 05:58 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:14 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 09:22 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:15 +0000
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 04:40 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 09:27 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 05:54 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 06:03 -0700
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:51 -0500
Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:50 -0500
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Reminder: Ionizing radiation |
| Message-ID | <XKWdnSlNCJs1WsjKnZ2dnUU7-UWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Ionizing radiation > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation > Ionizing (or ionising in British English) radiation is radiation that > carries enough energy to free electrons from atoms or molecules, > thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation is made up of energetic > subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at high speeds (usually > greater than 1% of the speed of light), and electromagnetic waves on > the high-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. > > Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the > electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet > part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also the lower part of the > spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all > types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all > considered non-ionizing radiation. Something to think about when reading the media's frenzy concerning cell phone radiation. Study that found cell phones cause cancer in rats is riddled with red flags > http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/study-that-found-cell-phones-cause-cancer-in-rats-is-riddled-with-red-flags/ -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 18:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1cublb1mk1qadfn1eqsl6938jvbfe92o5c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583394 |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: >Ionizing radiation >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation > >> Ionizing (or ionising in British English) radiation is radiation that >> carries enough energy to free electrons from atoms or molecules, >> thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation is made up of energetic >> subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at high speeds (usually >> greater than 1% of the speed of light), and electromagnetic waves on >> the high-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. >> >> Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the >> electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet >> part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also the lower part of the >> spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all >> types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all >> considered non-ionizing radiation. https://youtu.be/RwTjsRt0Fzo Make Plasma With Grapes In The Microwave! Time stamp 1:04 -- Q: "What is plasma?" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)> A plasma can be created by heating a gas or subjecting it to a strong electromagnetic field, applied with a laser or microwave generator. This decreases or increases the number of electrons, creating positive or negative charged particles called ions What was that about microwaves being considered non-ionizing radiation? > Something to think about when reading the media's frenzy concerning > cell phone radiation. > > Study that found cell phones cause cancer in rats is riddled with > red flags >> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/study-that-found-cell-phones-cause-cancer-in-rats-is-riddled-with-red-flags/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 18:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj4vhu$8v4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583394 |
On 6/6/2016 1:57 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > Ionizing radiation >> >> Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the >> electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet >> part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also the lower part of the >> spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all >> types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all >> considered non-ionizing radiation. > > > Something to think about when reading the media's frenzy concerning > cell phone radiation. cell phones put out non ionizoning radiation, just heat things up a little, Motorola did a study and test about 1979 and found a cellphone could raise temperature by 0.1 F in a persons head (modeled by pigfat) a thing to be more concerned about is ionizing radiation from the sky, and from the earth, and consider *sleeping vertically* to reduce cross section to this background ionizating radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 22:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57563478$0$36026$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583434 |
On 06/06/2016 07:04 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 6/6/2016 1:57 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> Ionizing radiation > >>> >>> Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the >>> electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet >>> part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also the lower part of the >>> spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all >>> types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all >>> considered non-ionizing radiation. >> >> >> Something to think about when reading the media's frenzy concerning >> cell phone radiation. > > cell phones put out non ionizoning radiation, just heat things up a > little, Motorola did a study and test about 1979 and found a cellphone > could raise temperature by 0.1 F in a persons head (modeled by pigfat) > > a thing to be more concerned about is ionizing radiation from the sky, > and from the earth, and consider *sleeping vertically* to reduce cross > section to this background ionizating radiation. > > WOW! The "global warming" Wormley needs to worry about is the "globe" on the top of his neck. I heard just a FRACTION of a DEGREE temperature rise in brain cells MAY produce dramatic loss of memory and intelligence. I think there is plenty of data supporting this theory and it's pretty much settled science now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 22:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57562dec$0$31329$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583394 |
On 06/06/2016 02:57 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > Ionizing radiation >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation > >> Ionizing (or ionising in British English) radiation is radiation that >> carries enough energy to free electrons from atoms or molecules, >> thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation is made up of energetic >> subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at high speeds (usually >> greater than 1% of the speed of light), and electromagnetic waves on >> the high-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. >> >> Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the >> electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet >> part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also the lower part of the >> spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all >> types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all >> considered non-ionizing radiation. > > > Something to think about when reading the media's frenzy concerning > cell phone radiation. > > Study that found cell phones cause cancer in rats is riddled with > red flags >> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/study-that-found-cell-phones-cause-cancer-in-rats-is-riddled-with-red-flags/ Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for honest and open science! Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! Remember that at your next trip to the dentist! The real danger of cellphones seems to be induced stupidity. HVAC and you seem to be two prime datapoints in this theory in which I firmly believe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 04:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tkuh2d-igs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583454 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/06/2016 02:57 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> Ionizing radiation >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation >> >>> Ionizing (or ionising in British English) radiation is radiation that >>> carries enough energy to free electrons from atoms or molecules, >>> thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation is made up of energetic >>> subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at high speeds (usually >>> greater than 1% of the speed of light), and electromagnetic waves on >>> the high-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. >>> >>> Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the >>> electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet >>> part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also the lower part of the >>> spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all >>> types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all >>> considered non-ionizing radiation. >> >> >> Something to think about when reading the media's frenzy concerning >> cell phone radiation. >> >> Study that found cell phones cause cancer in rats is riddled with >> red flags >>> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/study-that-found-cell-phones-cause-cancer-in-rats-is-riddled-with-red-flags/ > > Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in > finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for > honest and open science! > > Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? > > Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us > that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. > > THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! > > Remember that at your next trip to the dentist! Remember that the next time you are outside of a lead room anywhere on the planet and especially near stone buildings and stone sculptures. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 10:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj5v32$f1c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #583479 |
On 06/07/2016 06:20 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> >> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >> honest and open science! >> >> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >> >> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >> >> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! >> >> Remember that at your next trip to the dentist! > > Remember that the next time you are outside of a lead room anywhere on > the planet and especially near stone buildings and stone sculptures. As human body is radioactive by its nature, due Potassium 40, benj is already doomed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 07:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj6gei$g0t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583507 |
On 6/7/2016 3:02 AM, Poutnik wrote: > On 06/07/2016 06:20 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > >>> >>> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >>> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >>> honest and open science! >>> >>> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >>> >>> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >>> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >>> >>> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! >>> >>> Remember that at your next trip to the dentist! >> >> Remember that the next time you are outside of a lead room anywhere on >> the planet and especially near stone buildings and stone sculptures. > > As human body is radioactive by its nature, due Potassium 40, > benj is already doomed. > > > > Bananas are radioactive too, again the high Potassium levels
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nj6i0l$h5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #583532 |
On 06/07/2016 02:58 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 6/7/2016 3:02 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> As human body is radioactive by its nature, due Potassium 40, >> benj is already doomed. >> > > Bananas are radioactive too, again the high Potassium levels Another source is 222Rn radioactivity based of 226Ra content in building materials or rock/soil fundations ( need of ventilation ). Or water as direct radon source, as radon emanating from solids dissolves in underground water. Especially showering with such a water is good way of the lung irradiation. As radon as a noble gas escapes to the breathed air and decay radon products are solid alfa emitters, sitting in the lungs, priming the lung cancer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 07:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj6gcm$g0t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583479 |
On 6/6/2016 11:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> On 06/06/2016 02:57 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>> Ionizing radiation >> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >> honest and open science! >> >> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >> >> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >> >> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! >> >> Remember that at your next trip to the dentist! > > Remember that the next time you are outside of a lead room anywhere on > the planet and especially near stone buildings and stone sculptures. > > > granite counters in kitchens too, it is easily measurable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 17:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25c0f2c4-1420-42a1-a57b-f941532e3ce5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583479 |
an old longitudinal study showed that those who live at altitude or near radioactive rocks, had the least cancer ... but I do not know any of the specifics > Remember that the next time you are outside of a lead room anywhere on > the planet and especially near stone buildings and stone sculptures. > > > > -- > Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 06:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj6cp5$9hb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583454 |
On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: > Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in > finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for > honest and open science! > > Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? > > Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us > that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. > > THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to consider: 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving to the mountains would be pointless to fret about. 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA, damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which, while not "safe", is dealt with effectively. > > Remember that at your next trip to the dentist! > > The real danger of cellphones seems to be induced stupidity. HVAC and > you seem to be two prime datapoints in this theory in which I firmly > believe. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 08:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj6hfr$iac$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583522 |
On 6/7/2016 6:56 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote:
>> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in
>> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for
>> honest and open science!
>>
>> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation?
>>
>> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us
>> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar.
>>
>> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION!
>
> Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to
> consider:
> 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can
> do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So
> any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving
> to the mountains would be pointless to fret about.
> 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA,
> damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed
> from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which,
> while not "safe", is dealt with effectively.
>
like tiny bullets, Gamma rays go through the body, occasionally damaging
a reproducing DNA strand.
most likely the strand will not replicate, and dies off, if it
replicates it can become a cancer, or a growth, or gets killed off by
white cells.
note that non-reproducing DNA strands are much much stronger at
resisting radiation.
your gut replaces the cells lining the small intestine daily, so your
mid section is the area to protect from ionization radiation, and it is
why there are few medical scans of that area.
This is also why it is extremely hard to say their is a safe level of
ionization radiation.
Remember their is background radiation all the time, moving to mountains
most likely will be more radioactive.
where is the least amount of radiation on earth ? at sea about 20 foot
down ? not in a lead room, most likely the lead has a fair amount of
radioactive contaminants in it..
We are lucky there is a minimum of background radiation at the earths
surface, you move down:the rocks get you, you move up: cosmic rays get you.
remember that if you volunteer to go to Mars
I have a nice paperback book on this in my library on how ionization
radiation effects human body. This area is well know.
If you are interested in being the subject of a ionozing radiation
experiment, send a brief txt to makemerich@paypal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1vel4mbyuwtnp$.6ci84gx58edh$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #583537 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 08:16:36 -0500, Sergio wrote:
> note that non-reproducing DNA strands are much much stronger at
> resisting radiation.
This doesn't seem right evolution-wise.
--
"Woade Hueoo"
-extra thick-lipped Black American female
intending to say "Walnut Hill"
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj783e$1re5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583644 |
On 6/7/2016 2:24 PM, ClutterFreak wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 08:16:36 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >> note that non-reproducing DNA strands are much much stronger at >> resisting radiation. > > This doesn't seem right evolution-wise. Im using wrong terminology, when DNA reproduces it goes single strand for a while, and that is when it is more susceptible to getting a part snipped and then going rogue. when DNA bound in a helix, it is harder to snip a part, harder to go rogue - (poor explanation, but book is packed up.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un4j2d-r73.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583522 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: >> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >> honest and open science! >> >> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >> >> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >> >> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! > > Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to > consider: > 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can > do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So > any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving > to the mountains would be pointless to fret about. > 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA, > damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed > from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which, > while not "safe", is dealt with effectively. Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe. Interestingly, there is reasearch that seems to indicate that extremly low levels of radiation, much like many other things that are toxic in high doses, are beneficial. However the lack of an environment with zero radiation makes proving this one way or another problematic. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 13:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5757082c$0$29133$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583565 |
On 06/07/2016 11:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: >>> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >>> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >>> honest and open science! >>> >>> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >>> >>> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >>> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >>> >>> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! >> >> Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to >> consider: >> 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can >> do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So >> any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving >> to the mountains would be pointless to fret about. >> 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA, >> damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed >> from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which, >> while not "safe", is dealt with effectively. > > Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe. So you are arguing like Odd normally would that "not safe" actually means "safe"? Not that Odd to his credit did NOT argue that not safe means safe this time and agreed that there IS NO SAFE DOSE. He left it to you to take up that argument. And you did. However, your argument is totally wrong because the damage caused by raditiaon is random. and for that reason it may or may not be repaired and dealt with. The bottom line being there can be NO assurance that any given event might not be the start of cancer or other problems. > Interestingly, there is reasearch that seems to indicate that extremly > low levels of radiation, much like many other things that are toxic in > high doses, are beneficial. Yeah, I remember the gummint telling everyone how safe and "beneficial" radiation was! Worked just great for treating sore throats and the like. March those GIs right in after the atomic blast. See how "safe"? HVAC says you ALWAYS must trust governments to tell the truth. Too bad about all those people who got thyroid and other cancer as a result. > However the lack of an environment with zero radiation makes proving > this one way or another problematic. Of course the "safe" dose is a ZERO dose and that just isn't possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <00fj2d-3a4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583605 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/07/2016 11:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: >>>> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >>>> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >>>> honest and open science! >>>> >>>> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >>>> >>>> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >>>> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >>>> >>>> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! >>> >>> Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to >>> consider: >>> 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can >>> do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So >>> any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving >>> to the mountains would be pointless to fret about. >>> 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA, >>> damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed >>> from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which, >>> while not "safe", is dealt with effectively. >> >> Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe. > > So you are arguing like Odd normally would that "not safe" actually > means "safe"? Nope; just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". <snip remaining long winded gummint (sic) kook babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mn4elblq9t684kodhvmdr0c8trim0c4ihe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583618 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> On 06/07/2016 11:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >>>>> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >>>>> honest and open science! >>>>> >>>>> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >>>>> >>>>> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >>>>> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >>>>> >>>>> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! >>>> >>>> Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to >>>> consider: >>>> 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can >>>> do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So >>>> any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving >>>> to the mountains would be pointless to fret about. >>>> 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA, >>>> damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed >>>> from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which, >>>> while not "safe", is dealt with effectively. >>> >>> Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe. >> >> So you are arguing like Odd normally would that "not safe" actually >> means "safe"? > >Nope; just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". > ><snip remaining long winded gummint (sic) kook babble> Which dictionary? And which sense? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/safe 1. secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk: a safe place. 2. free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk: to arrive safe and sound. 3. involving little or no risk of mishap, error, etc.: a safe estimate. Senses 1 and 2 can be known only after the fact: the damaged cell was repaired or "flushed from the system." If the cell was damaged and became a problem, then the radiation dose was *not* safe. BTW: How expendable was the cell that was "flushed from the system?" Who knows whether it was the most important nueron in what would have been a brilliant, world-changing thought? The third sense is subjective. Would you play Russian Roulette if there was "little" risk?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj75il$1mqr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583629 |
On 6/7/2016 1:39 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/07/2016 11:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in >>>>>> finding a link between cellphones and cancer. That certainly makes for >>>>>> honest and open science! >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us >>>>>> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar. >>>>>> >>>>>> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION! >>>>> >>>>> Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to >>>>> consider: >>>>> 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can >>>>> do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So >>>>> any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving >>>>> to the mountains would be pointless to fret about. >>>>> 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA, >>>>> damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed >>>>> from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which, >>>>> while not "safe", is dealt with effectively. >>>> >>>> Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe. >>> >>> So you are arguing like Odd normally would that "not safe" actually >>> means "safe"? >> >> Nope; just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". >> >> <snip remaining long winded gummint (sic) kook babble> > > Which dictionary? > > And which sense? > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/safe > 1. secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk: > a safe place. > 2. free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk: > to arrive safe and sound. > 3. involving little or no risk of mishap, error, etc.: > a safe estimate. > > Senses 1 and 2 can be known only after the fact: the damaged cell was > repaired or "flushed from the system." > > If the cell was damaged and became a problem, then the radiation dose > was *not* safe. > > BTW: How expendable was the cell that was "flushed from the system?" > Who knows whether it was the most important nueron in what would have > been a brilliant, world-changing thought? > > The third sense is subjective. Would you play Russian Roulette if > there was "little" risk? > I would guess cell damage is 99.99% safe. very few dammages cells turn into cancer. a way to bound it is take 100,000 people over their lifetime of 80 years. how many get cancer ? about 450 (gov statistic) assume 100% is caused by radiation dammaged cells assume background radiation rate of 100 counts per second via averaged body size (probably low) # of seconds in 80 years = 2,522,880,000 times 100 = 2.5 E+11 hits divide that by 450, take recipical you get 1.78 E-9 or 99.999998% chance the gamma will not hit a DNA and cause a cancer. *Additional Credit* Discuss another way to bound it (hint: cross sectional area)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web