Isn't It True That Radioactive Isotopes Which Zip Through Our Bodies During Cross Country Flights Just Dehydrate the Human Body?
Isn't It True That Radioactive Isotopes Which Zip Through Our Bodies During
Cross Country Flights Just Dehydrate the Human Body?
We all agree, (I hope), that the same type of radioactive isotopes which
fly through our bodies while riding bicycles fly through our bodies while
we fly in airplanes, merely are found in higher concentrations at higher
altitudes, yes? That's the general premise, right?
The human body is primarily composed of water and the radioactive isotopes
zipping through our bodies and boggling speeds are only present long enough
to deliver an infinitesimal amount of energy, correct?
'Effective Dose' attempts to calculate that infinitesimal amount of energy
and extrapolate based upon that infinitesimal amount of energy, correct?
So what we end up with conceptualizing through 'Effective Dose', is a 'bit
by bit compounding' of 'infinitesimal amounts of energy', correct? That
compounded 'sum' of expressed energy is what we are 'allegedly dealing
with' in terms of effective dose, correct?
It seems to me to stand the test of reason, that we may be able to divine
the effects of such alleged amounts of energy encountered through bair
travel by our own human behavior and changes in our physiology before,
during and after air travel.
In addition to the low humidity in airline cabins, what if this extra
'alleged exposure through radioactive isotopes' merely dehydrates the human
body just a bit more?
I've always heard that flying dehydrates people. I've experienced it every
time I fly. In fact my Aunt tells me to drink water before and after I fly,
because she believes that she has learned that flying dehydrates people.
Isn't this dehydration while flying common knowledge? Water is certainly a
popular purchase in airports.
Also, people seem to become inebriated with more ease on flights, much like
drinking on a sunny beach- dehydration while drinking= higher concentration
of alcohol, right?
Everyone I know seems to be aware of these long understood truths.
Commercial Airlines seem to be aware of dehydration during flights as well:
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/your-health-inflight/global/en
The human body is primarily composed of water and when water is exposed to
energy, isn't 'evaporation' or 'dehydration' the natural process in terms
of cause and effect?
If that is the case, and if we can apply Occam's Razor successfully to this
situation, doesn't that mean that the 'airplane analogy' is possibly and
even probably, nothing more than a comparison of Fukushima Nuclear Fallout
(which we are finding in our water and food cycle), to relatively
'Nothing'?
Try and stay focused
Try and stay focused on:
I'm not arguing math/calculation.
I'm arguing premise.
It's obviously a hypothetical.
The math may be sound but the premise is flawed.
For some reason that
For some reason that phrasing reminds me of Johnny Cochran : If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!
This is the first 'BRAWM Team In The News' Link
This is the first 'BRAWM Team In The News' Link on the UCB Nuclear
engineering page from March 17. Let me introduce you...
(since you haven't met):
http://www.ktvu.com/news/27229563/detail.html
SAN FRANCISCO -- Bay Area residents are not at risk of radiation
contamination from a potential nuclear disaster in Japan, regional and
federal authorities said Thursday.
"Everybody, for the most part, is saying the risks are insignificant," he
said.
Do you have any data
Do you have any data indicating that the risks are significant?
Thank you for posting that comment Publicly
Do you have any data
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-06-27 02:46.
Do you have any data indicating that the risks are significant?
______________________
I really wish your comment were 'emblazoned' across the UC Berkeley
Nuclear Engineering WebPage. That would be helpful in illustrating
the mentality which the BRAWM Team has fostered and continues to
foster.
Perhaps such a misguided point such as this had 'room to breathe'
on March 12, 13 or 14th. However, today is June 26, 2011.
Anonymously, you have the temerity to make such a statement.
Were you in a room of qualified professionals or in front of cameras?
Well let's put it like this, why don't you run along and convince a
BRAWM Team member to make your statement today? Let's see how it
works out?
I hope reasonable people read your comment over and over again
while they watch this video:
______________________
http://vimeo.com/25002205
Arnie Gundersen :)
Arnie Gundersen :)
So now BRAWM is part of the
So now BRAWM is part of the international conspiracy to underplay Fukushima's true import and impact and to deceive the human race generally.
Maybe they're Zionists.
You know, it takes a lot of balls to walk into someone's house and tell your host that they're not just stupid or aloof, but corrupt. Not much brains, mind you; but plenty of balls.
It's hard to argue
It's hard to argue such lofty intellectualism.
Well, simple truths tend to
Well, simple truths tend to be just that - simple.
And yet, true.
Stick with that kiddo.
Try applying it to the 'Airplane Analogy', even.
bogus unscientific comparison
the airplanes/bananas/speedboats analogy is severely flawed, bogus pseudoscience, and nothing more. anyone that doesn't realize or understand that does not possess critical thinking skills nor understand rudimentary gradeschool science.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
Why people get so worked up
Why people get so worked up by the Airplane Analogy? It's not like the audience suddenly forgot about Fukushima and started focusing on transcontinental flights.
As a relative layperson,
As a relative layperson, I'll just say this: I personally find the "airplane analogy" to be of limited utility...but some, yeah. How's that? you may wonder... It's because the airplane experience is one most of us can relate to; it's not some academic hypothetical, esoteric formulation or exotic situation requiring Byzantine knowledge or unusual pedigrees. Nearly everybody (in this country) can relate to cross-country air travel... far fewer can find the utility in maximum annual exposures for nuclear power indtatry laborers. Realizing that cross-continental air travel carries certain radiological risks most people and public health professionals find acceptable helps the non-nuclear scientist or radiation health expert assess the seriousness of the current global situation. Clumsily, and inaccurately, and not without the potential for dramatic understatement ... but, after all, it IS only an analogy.
Actually it was the official statement as regards public health
Actually it was the official statement as regards public
health which BRAWM made BIG news about.
Have you asked yourself why it was necessary to take the
issue of Radioactive Fallout landing on our food, soil
and water...and convert it into a meaningless discussion
about airplane flights?
Have you asked yourself, who benefits from such an approach?
Does the public benefit? (in terms of public health?)
or does the the 'Pro Nuclear Lobby'...who would like this
to go away asap?
Have you asked yourself why 'caution' was not taken in the
face of such an unprecedented disaster? Wouldn't caution be
prudent?
And if the answer is 'Yes! caution would be prudent!'
Then have you asked yourself: 'What could possibly override
caution in terms of priority, in light of such an
unprecedented and dangerous Nuclear disaster?'
the more things change...
You know, I get the whole conspiracy thing. Really I do.
When confronted by the reality of total mismanagement of a crisis, there's really only a few reactions people can have:
> They tried their best, but failed;
> They're incompetent;
> They succeeded - but at a totally differetnt agenda.
No one's ever really satisfied with Answer no. 1. We pay a lot of money in taxes, we have a massively multilayered bureaucracy, best scientific and technical minds in the world, etc., etc. This just CAN'T be "the best we can do". So then we move on to Answer no. 2.
And that works for most people and most circumstances. But sometimes, the situation gets so completely FUBAR that you think, man, this just CANNOT be by accident. The tapestry of crap is SO total, SO all-encompassing, that it simply boggles the mind to think that it ISN'T by some awful, nefarious design.
But I'm still skeptical. Are there persons and companies and organizations and even governments who are desperately trying to "manage" this crisis? You bet. Are some of their motives diabolical? Sure. Will they have harmful results? Absolutely.
But is EVERYBODY "in the know" necessarily "IN ON IT"? That's where the conspiracy train derails for me.
But, then - I must concede, that WOULD be exactly what They WANT me to think. That's the problem with conspiracy theorizing - they can rarely be effectively disproved, because the primary goal of any conspiracy would be to make its existence IMPOSSIBLE to prove. It's a circular argument and, anyway, you cannot prove the absence of existence of ANYTHING. Best you can do is to admit: We can't prove it exists, YET.
Which, again, is the point. Right?
Public Relations Campaign VS Conspiracy
Why is it necessary to classify a PR Campaign as a 'conspiracy'?
Regardless, it's my belief that conspiracies are both over and under-rated.
They certainly exist. We've all seen evidence of them. Some exist to break the law but most just exist to meet a goal. I was offered my choice of any 3 'cushy' positions by a company years ago. One of their employees had committed and atrocious act and the company wished to take a 'Preventative Maintenance' approach to persuade me not to sue.
Few people knew what happened. We conspired together to keep it out of court.
If you truly want to see evidence of a 'vast conspiracy' which cannot be legitimately refuted- here ya go- best 2-hour education you'll ever receive:
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
I assume you have read the
I assume you have read the FAQs already?
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044
Of course.
Of course. To the point of throwing up.
Whoops- this is from Leo
Whoops-
Leo
I'll deliver my questions as I see fit and you can take a seat.
[Oh you are arguing premise? Oh…well…uh…WELL THAT”S WRONG TOO! DADDY SAID SO!]
Wow. What a quick study you are with the ‘DADDY Method’.
YOU have NOT laid out why the premise is 'correct', you've merely backed 'Nuclear Bull In A China Shop Established Science (NBIACSES)' by repeating the phrase 'Science says it's right' and you have 'ignored' any obvious evidence of flaws in the 'Airplane Analogy'.
MANY flaws are obvious, such as tying ANYTHING back to reality for instance! Take 'tying' thyroid cancer, a likely repercussion of Iodine-131 ingestion and inhalation at ground level, 'back to reality', utilizing the 'Airplane Analogy', which everyone knows cannot be done without 'contorting and writhing' the 'science'. (?)
Didn’t we just go through that exercise? Do you sincerely lack THAT much understanding?
It would be necessary to contaminate the Airplanes water, air or food with Iodine-131 in order to reflect the reality experienced at ground level. We all realize (I hope), that such a proposition is 'difficult' to conceive of.
Now that we've established that, let's talk about how you have very quickly, in your own words, 'manipulated' the conversation:
Your quote:
"Apparently you think science is all group think. That is a ridiculous statement to make."
Here is my quote:
"Do you want to know what the root cause of this
'fiasco' is? Groupthink. It's more important to
be part of the 'group' then it is to do the right
thing, such as asking questions of ourselves or
questioning authority."
If I believe that the root cause of Fukushima, which I termed a 'fiasco', (it's certainly clear I wasn't speaking to 'all of science'), is 'Groupthink'- where do you make the leap to 'all of science' from 'Nuclear Engineers who designed and built Fukushima' and it's backup systems?
I never stated such a thing yet 'here you are' chiding me for saying it.
I think that's a decent enough illustration of 'manipulation of data' right there to be frank. If that's any indication of how you handle your science you should go get a job as a 'talking head' instead. Maybe talk radio.
You might be interested to know, that the root cause investigation of the 'Challenger Disaster', (kind of a big event in science), determined the 'root cause' to be 'Groupthink'. Look it up.
I didn't let 'that' personally determine that 'all of science' was guilty of 'Groupthink' either, but it certainly got my attention as to how powerful an effect 'Groupthink' can have on important matters within even the most 'prestigious organizations'.
I personally, don't 'understand' how ANY intelligent organization designs, approves and builds 'Tsunami Backup Generators', in a 'basement', without 'Groupthink' taking place. Maybe you thought they were a good idea? Cutting Edge thinking?
___________________
Your quote:
I want to know where is the premise wrong because arguing dose is not dose would mean that all radiation studies since the 40s are wrong.
(?) the concept of 'Effective Dose' has only been offered since 1975-1977 so I don't understand how it could affect studies prior to it's introduction... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_dose
___________________
Your quotes:
OK, you can argue the premise is wrong. But what is wrong about it? It has been shown to be correct, and if it is wrong that dose is dose that means that there is absolutely no proof that low level of radiation is harmful.
Does it? Wow. Apparently you're a quick study on concepts you claim 'don't make sense' when you can find a way to utilize that same concept to minimize the harmful effects of low-level-radiation can't you?
What a ‘rare’ claim on this forum, yes?
___________________
Your quote:
The statement does not make sense. I may just be unable to understand the statement, what does that mean?
(I'll explain but first...make up your mind?)
In reality, Radioactive Dose 'resists encapsulation
through normalization' as a result of Radiation's
'varied nature'.
In Reality: The analysis required to take 3 entirely different forms of broad ranging radioactive emissions, Gamma/Beta/Alpha, and assume that we can ‘equalize’ or ‘normalize’ them across the ‘vast spectrum’ of different living human tissues and organs, is an ‘exercise in futility’ due to the variables involved.
Let me say something about the heart of this matter as well-
This entire scenario of Fukushima is new and unprecedented- and we admittedly can't even detect all of the Gamma/Beta/Alpha 'radioactive isotopes' in their 'various forms' coming from Fukushima because the Nuclear Energy Industry was completely unprepared to do so.
Yet isn't it amazing that somehow, there are those who make the claim that we can take into account every 'transpositional variable' which exists between 'human cellular tissue' and 'range of radioactive emission' and all OTHER 'interactive variables' including age, other disease, and OTHER variables of the '360X360 degree reality within which we exist', which affects everything from 'diet to immunity levels', (children playing in puddles who have already have cancer for instance).
Isn't that what is being claimed every time someone clarifies 'We have taken this into account in our dose calculations'?
I will tell you this- on paper? We 'look' like 'Gods'. But in 'reality'? We exist like 'Fools' when we fall under the spell of such 'illusions'.
________________
Now then- you can call me names, state ridiculous notions, ask me questions from the shadow of 'ignorant anonymity' while you 'bask in confusion', but you're not going to do all 3 and hit me with 'have you stopped beating your wife' setups as well.
Get lost.
I'll not entertain such 'conversation' in the future.
Awesome post Leo! Thanks for
Awesome post Leo! Thanks for all your posts.
Yoda? Is that you?
Yoda? Is that you?
WOOT WOOT! Here here!
WOOT WOOT! Here here! HuzzAH!
so long effective dose, hello real world
excellent synopsis. so even the underlying model is a complete fabrication.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.