This is a very intersting point; Many, maybe MOST believe that if you find K-40 or background radiation is not dangerous/ healthy/ or very little danger that you give the green light to the nuclear industry. Actually if they would only stop and consider it, the OPPOSITE is the case!
If the danger of sugar is assumed to be the same for all types, then the sugar industry would say their white stuff is no worse than honey or lactose or erythritol. It turns out erythritol is one of the only ways besides brushing and floss that STOPS cavities. A sugar that STOPS cavities, instead of causing. So the sugar industry cant say their white stuff is the same as any sugar. But you, the nuke industry and everybody else is saying one source of radiation is the same as the others, all dangerous.
This is very important; The industry, scientists and media all compare the small amount of fallout to the huge amount of K-40. See Woods Hole to confirm this. This in fact does what you fear I am doing. It lets the nuclear industry off the hook, it gives them the green light. It legally, and conceptually allows them to exist and pollute at levels far below regulation standards because nobody can believe that one radiation source could be different than another. Just because they cant BELIEVE it DOESNT mean it isnt true! Specific activity is the obvious clue but there may be many,…
the Nuclear Industry to exist and continue this insane irradiation that is ongoing and
deadly. It surely is a conundrum this large amount of K-40 in our bodies and in the
oceans. Twisted psychopathic thinking will find a way to justify deadly man made
radiation as less harmful than this K-40. K-40 exists and definitely less harmful than
in equal doses to other nucliedes. How less harmful would be interesting to know.
If it was detrimental as you say we humans would of perished long ago. Perhaps
the bodily degradation from K-40 is so slow in its weakening effects on the immune
system and cellular matrix that it is not a significant factor in our mortality? Contra-
naturum– our organisms may have successfully adapted to k-40 due our bio energic
fields that may affect breakdown of isotopes differently…… what are the factors that
affect radio active decay of isotopes in our bodies. This could be an angle of investigation.
Free Radicals in the Physiological Control of Cell Function
Physiological Reviews Published 1 January 2002
At high concentrations, free radicals and radical-derived, nonradical reactive species are hazardous for living organisms and damage all major cellular constituents. At moderate concentrations, however, nitric oxide (NO), superoxide anion, and related reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important role as regulatory mediators in signaling processes. Many of the ROS-mediated responses actually protect the cells against oxidative stress and reestablish “redox homeostasis.” Higher organisms, however, have evolved the use of NO and ROS also as signaling molecules for other physiological functions. These include regulation of vascular tone, monitoring of oxygen tension in the control of ventilation and erythropoietin production, and signal transduction from membrane receptors in various physiological processes. NO and ROS are typically generated in these cases by tightly regulated enzymes such as NO synthase (NOS) and NAD(P)H oxidase…
continued…NO and ROS are typically generated in these cases by tightly regulated enzymes such as NO synthase (NOS) and NAD(P)H oxidase isoforms, respectively. In a given signaling protein, oxidative attack induces either a loss of function, a gain of function, or a switch to a different function. Excessive amounts of ROS may arise either from excessive stimulation of NAD(P)H oxidases or from less well-regulated sources such as the mitochondrial electron-transport chain. In mitochondria, ROS are generated as undesirable side products of the oxidative energy metabolism.
I will download the posts, put them in a folder and call it the
Code Copernicus Conumdrum on Differential Effects of Radiation
The next step is to translate all this into a format where
it can be easily understood and slip through defensive
thought structures and help the world to comprehend what
exactly is dangerous in nuclear radiation. A huge endeavor.
I am not too optimistic as I think most people shut down on
this and passively go on living overwhelmed by all things
nuclear and willingly accept the party line that it is not that
dangerous the sea of radiation we now live in.
- "we live in a sea of radiation, the danger was insignificant until man added new radioisotopes.–Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds–"
- we live in a sea of radiation; it caused no cancer or dead zones until man made nuclear fallout. –Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds–
- "The world and our bodies have always been radioactive but only nuclear fallout has caused gargantuanism, deformity and mental retardation"
- Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of fallout, I will fear no nuclear: for thou art with me; thy rad and thy ICRP graph they have retarded me.
- Why Shut Down Nuke?
- Radiation Removal
- Rad Prep Shelter in Place Checklist
- Uranium Aerosolized Into Atmosphere
- Videos, Fukshima Blew Up in a Prompt Criticality
- Gundersen Email / Theories
- Largest Lies of Nuke
- Baseline is Just One Of The Lies
- Hormesis Is a Lie
- Nuke Accidents 101
- Renewable Energy PV
- Carrington Event and Astronomy
- Rad Maps, Earthquakes, Nuke Bombs
- Chernobyl Documentary 500K
- Conversions / Safety Limits
- Pictures - High Quality
- Prepper/Survival Resources And Protection from Radiation
- List of Reactors