tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post1620859591766389639..comments2023-11-05T02:15:15.513-08:00Comments on Majia's Blog: SpeculationMajia's Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04941091700194936591noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-81206569124344099652013-10-28T03:53:40.075-07:002013-10-28T03:53:40.075-07:00Majia,
I wonder how the emissions are changing th...Majia,<br /><br />I wonder how the emissions are changing the chemistry of our oceans and air. Will it increase ocean acidification or form dangerous compounds? Tritium is usually 'managed' by nuke industry; filtered, stored and released when safe. Tritiated water is only lethal if ingested, affecting mostly aquatic species. Tepco has had major problems managing emissions. <br /><br />"tritium produced measureable, dose dependent, and irreversible suppression of immune capacity in affected fish."<br />"It appeared that there was no threshold or significant dose-rate effect for either beta or gamma rays on germ cell survival, and that tritium beta rays were more effective than cesium-137 gamma rays in germ cell killing."<br />"Food Survey Values: <br /> Tritium was detected in 4% of 200 portions of foods (raw vegetables, fruits, fish, and milk) collected near 33 nuclear reactors from October 1986 to September 1992(1). The maximum concentration observed in these positive detections was 70 Bq/kg, and most of the positive detections occurred in fish and vegetables in the vicinity of 4 sites"<br />"For scientific purposes, the generally accepted value for the half-life of tritium, as measured by Mound Laboratories, is 12.323+/-0.004 years (4500.88+/-1.46 days)."<br /><br />http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+6467<br /><br />HorseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-61850435293934175432012-08-04T05:11:48.581-07:002012-08-04T05:11:48.581-07:00James,
That's one example of why what is call...James,<br /><br />That's one example of why what is called Western Civilization is doomed. The elite have so dumbed down everyone that PhD students are lost, and even those who are supposed to replace the evil apparatchiks are not up for the task. The newer gang simply can't fill Kissinger's or Brzezinski's shoes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-90475081488969589682012-08-04T01:22:39.650-07:002012-08-04T01:22:39.650-07:00Majia,
I would like to comment on your hermit cra...Majia, <br />I would like to comment on your hermit crab observation. Although obviously it in itself is not prove any kind of causation - observation such as this is important in developing hypotheses which can be proven or disproven with scientific study.<br /><br />I too have a similarly unscientific observation. Last week I had to travel to Alaska and heard several times that the "salmon are very late this year" - as the following article indicates - not only were they late, they were down about 20-30% from last years abysmal numbers - making them in some places 50 and up to 75% off in the past two early summer runs. <br /><br />Having the salmon go away by 50% in the two seasons following a huge radiation fallout over the pacific ocean - coincidence? or not? Alaskans seem to have been convinced it had something to do with the immensely cold and snowy winter they had last year. I don't really know, but I couldn't help but wonder if it had more to do with something "hot", than something cold. <br /><br />http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/hopes-rise-around-alaska-late-bump-king-salmon<br /><br />The reason this may be easy to study is that they have relatively sophisticated methods of counting the fish as they swim upstream. I'm not completely familiar with it, or the accuracy, but I do know that it's not just an observation subject to human estimation error. <br /><br />Incidentally , I'm simply amazed at how many young folks are still distracted by global warming propaganda. I met a couple of young female PHD researchers studying "the effects of global warming on glaciers" - and in the brief conversation with them I realized they were very much in the camp of man-made global warming as the cause of glacier melt - <br /><br />so I acted a bit dumb and told them I heard that glaciers have been receding steadily for a few hundred years, and I though i remembered hearing that glacier bay has receded 40 miles over the past 250 years - which was met with blank stares. <br /><br />Then I asked them what's been going on with global temperature for the past few years, that I hadn't looked recently - to which they immediately replied - "oh it's gone up several degrees" <br /><br />I was shocked. These were not some uneducated rubes - these were PhD candidates from a well-known school!<br /><br />They apparently don't know the history of the very thing they are studying! <br /><br />They apparently don't look at any data at all - because they have no clue about the facts of global temperature...<br /><br />Not only were they dead wrong in answering my questions, they thought I was the one who was an imbecile - I could tell from their body language <br /><br />Of course they aren't the only ones... with this total lack of understanding of facts and scientific research methods all the way up to the PhD level, is it any wonder the public has no clue where the real environmental danger is to life on planed earth?<br /><br />after this short encounter, I got a bit depressed.<br /><br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-71225154509917464262012-08-03T07:40:16.859-07:002012-08-03T07:40:16.859-07:00The dose-response curve is supralinear in general,...The dose-response curve is supralinear in general, not just for infant mortality. This is the contention of the ECRR, and was confirmed by the most recent atomic bomb survivors study, as well as much other research.<br /><br />This means, that since the curve is flat over the range of very low doses to moderately low doses, any study for this dose range that does not use a control group, and uses dose-response data only, would not be expected to find increasing disease or death rates over this range. Thus they erroneously conclude that there is no effect from the radiation dose. An example of this is the Hanford thyroid study.<br /><br />Also, supralinearity implies that dilution of radioactivity INCREASES the amount of death and disease. Dilution exposes a much wider population to radiation, but reduces the dose to this larger population. But the reduction in dose does not matter as much, while the number exposed is greatly larger.Bobby1http://optimalprediction.com/wp/noreply@blogger.com