Please share far and wide!

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Cancer - Not So Basic As the Authorities Pretend, and Radiation is a Big Part

CodeShutdown
if cancer was a thing of pure random chance, the one DNA stand that didnt make it and spun out of control, as the science of radiobiology asserts, then your chances of getting cancer would not depend on your over all health, your immune system, diet and exercise. But this is not the case.
The new science of radiation physics will realize that the cell wall plays an important role, not just the nucleus. Simoncini was right about genetics…they arent 'written in stone', they are expressed depending on extracellular and intracellular communication. The cell wall is key because of the ion channels, the proteins and the extracellular matrix which extend the function of the cell to act in synch with the rest of the body. You are one animal, and so the cells have to act as one. The cell is not a jumble of tinker toys, its a functional unity…a little animal as it were.
Cancer isnt a genetic disease, its not a singular cell gone wrong, its a problem of cellular communication and cellular health over many cells.
The banana equivalence 'lie' is actually very complicated. The lie is that all ionizing radiation fits into one category of bodily influence. Simple observation shows this is not correct. A dose of radiation from one type of radionuclide can cause systemic ill health, while a larger dose of radiation from another radionuclide can be benign, even healthy
Our radioactive ocean, our radioactive body. The danger is not in the dose, the danger is in the…

stock, I think my points here are good. Chitin, fungus, parasites, rise in cancer since the nuclear age, cell communication, and its disruption through bioelectric ion corruption by bioconcentrated fallout containing parasites. It fits together like a big jigsaw puzzle. It has science behind it. Just think of it this way; they USE these fungi or chitin organisms to sop up radionuclides in the industry because they are so good at it. Moreover, many of them (melanized ones) THRIVE off thatshit and actively seek it out. Now, at the same time we have sound clinical evidence that getting rid of those buggers and restoring the cell to health can cure cancer. The evidence that the two are related is de facto; parasites and fungi have been wreaking havoc since forever, but cancer is on the rise since the nuclear era and Chernobyl showed that low levels kill. Ion exchange is a key factor. Amino acids can act as ion exchange material also. The combination of pathogens, fungi and radiation goes a long way to explain the situation. Autoradiographs show INTERNAL hot spots of cesium….how do they get there? The body does not allow anything bigger than some molecules to pass, not hot particles…I would think Our digestive sieve is very very fine!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CodeShutdown
wow, 137Cs levels up to 23,000 Bq⋅m−3. Thats almost twice the background radiation.
Buesseler is on the project. He knows from his work in the black sea that sediment can contain 1000x as much radiation as in the open water.
The scientists of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution say the levels of radiation “are not of primary concern” to public health.
Whew…ok, and we are told you can trust them, so no worries


Report comment

CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
one of the articles added a twist; "Fortunately, these waters are not used for drinking and no one is exposed to them, so the authors said “public health is not of primary concern” in their paper"


Report comment

CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
heres a question; is ONE atom of cesium137 per cell a concern? Can it do anything at all to speak of? Pretty sure it isnt radiating until it decays and then its a quick trip or two to barium stability. One atom.
According to an estimate made by engineers at Washington University, there are around 100,000,000,000,000 or 100 trillion atoms in a human cell. Could ONE atom of cesium do anything to disrupt 100 trillion atoms?
Its a key question, and one must know the answer to successfully argue against Woods Hole's continued statement that Fukushima radiation is of no concern.
Ive been giving answers for a long time! Now I want to hear some answers from other people


Report comment

  • waitinanquakin waitinanquakin
    Code, seriously, haven't the last few days shown you what this place is all about?
    Lighten up, amuse yourself, try and break your addiction. Or go full-on gnarly. But reason – ahahahaha!


    oh well -
    …the amount of energy absorbed by a mass of cells is not what determines biological effect.
    What matters is the spacial concentration of ionizing events in relation to cellular molecular components hit.
    Internal emitters are densely ionizing.
    You know what this also means?
    The ICRP model is a FAILED model in relation to describing the effects of internally ingested LLR.
    The model has been myopically designed not to recognise the effects of low level radiological exposure, and only cancer and directly observable birth defects of living newborns, despite the a plethora of other illnesses may result from organic molecular damage.
    The evidence of numerous studies bears this out.
    (Thank you white wolf)

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
      or-well steps to the plate! Good job too
      I ask about one atom for a reason. Is one atom densely ionizing? I mean forget about low and high energy tracks…just the radiation from one atom. I would say no, its not a high density radiation source…its not doing much of anything until it cant take the unstable thoughts and then it goes to barium then stable, 90% of the time. One atom is not a constant source of becquerels
      If my little stab at it was correct, we are at a biologically significant dose of Cs137 with an average of one atom per cell. A near fatal dose is about 130 atoms per cell (whole body average). Compare to K-40; we have about six million radioactive potassium atoms (k-40) per cell! (unless I messed up the numbers!)
      This is the foundation that lets Beusseler say there is no harm from the fallout…"our radioactive ocean" is the Woods Hole and NOAA theme to placate the public
      The scientific and legal base is the ICRP dose model. You might guess I have some thoughts about this low dose conundrum


      Report comment

      • Maybe the Grateful Dead could re-issue a song as
        "It's Just A Bag Of Water…….."

      • waitinanquakin waitinanquakin
        Who? Oh – you mean my brother from a different dimension, with evil intention, and a bad psychic henchman, a mean monkeewrenchman with linguistic tension.
        He's dead.


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
          dead? No, wherever a bright mind speaks out on injustice without mincing words, or paints the picture in poetry, there you shall find him
          http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-poetry-is-the-music-and-painting-of-the-mind-sonia-orwell-119-97-09.jpg


          Report comment

          • Excellent point Code, I knew that as true, a strong immune system and strong body will help prevent or fight cancer.
            But never saw it written in that manner, so that is awesome.


            Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
              I think its key to realize that just adding free radical de activators is not the be all and end all of why herbs and vit c and stuff can combat cancer from low level radiation. Gerson found that the cell voltage had to be high to combat cancer…but later research found that the intercellular communication that relies on the ion channels, the bioelectric fields has a primary role. Cancer isnt a single cell disease. Low level radiation is not a DNA double strand break problem for the most part. Added free radical load has an effect but what it is EXACTLY? It is the cascade of effects, resulting in a breakdown of intercellular communications which ultimately leads to a metasticized cancer.
              The fact that chitin and other endogenous material have this ion exchange property that bioaccumulates radiation of high specific activity seems like a VERY good line of research.
              You see, the high specific activity shouldnt come into play if the cesium is evenly distributed at the atomic level (not totally true, but for the point). One atom out of six million. But if the cesium accumulates into hot regions of fungi, or amino acid neurotransmitters, or parasites, then the inter-cellular communication system is disrupted. Kill the parasites, the fungi (not very easy!!), get the heavy metals out, fortify the body with its required nutrition and low level radiation will not have the cancerous effect


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                I should say, one radioactive cesium atom out of six million radioactive potassium atoms in the cell…which has some 37 trillion atoms…how much harm can it do? As it turns out, this has been epidemiologically and even lab tested to have an effect. A very tiny shooter, put one radioactive decay into a cell and a systemic cellular response was observed. Moreover, if you take a cell that has been 'hit' by a track of fallout decay, and just take some of the fluid that the cell was in and transfer it to the fluid bathing other cells, there will be an effect. The other cells, untouched by radiation, may decide to commit suicide, so drastic is the communication note held in that fluid


                Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus
                What would be the chances of any one life form being physically exposed to nuclear waste, being exposed to only one atom of nuclear waste.


                Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus
                Now I'm curious as to whether those people in Lithuania that were documented as having been exposed from Fukushima are fearmongering because they probably only got just one atom of plutonium…


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                Jebus, a fetus might get one atom, and it would apparently have an effect. But the figure is one atom per cell, not one atom in total.
                1/5 of a becquerel in total was enough to deform butterflies in fukushima. 2 becquerels killed them.


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                Jebus, if my numbers are correct, the level of cesium that gives cesium heart described by bandazhevsky is on the order of one atom of cesium per cell (body average). Of course I could have messed up the math, so someone should check it. I only went through it once and there are big exponents to get right


                Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus
                I agree. I see more and more as I read others knowledge.
                I have enough studies in pdf for a class.
                I have been irradiated since before birth.
                Santa Susana melted down the summer I began.
                I live on the Columbia.
                I'm downwind, downriver, and destination trade winds.
                An atom seems so small…


                Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus
                Never stop speaking up Code, because no one is getting just one atom…


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                'Overall, several studies challenge the traditional paradigm that the important biological effects of ionizing radiation are due to DNA damage induced as a result of direct interaction of the radiation track with the cell nucleus. They indicate that irradiated and non-irradiated cells interact, and oxidative metabolism and intercellular communication have an essential role in signaling events leading to radiation-induced bystander effects.'
                http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850715000333


                Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus
                If one is many a risk.
                Many are lethal.
                Biology tends to collect and sequester.
                Putting what it perceives to need, where it needs it in an organism.
                I feel sad for the creatures when I see the descriptions of the representation of the bag of water.
                Ants communicate with many cells as a collective organism…


                Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
        parasites have been found to be associated with cancer. Allopathy recognizes a few, but outliers like Hulda Clark and Simoncini see parasites or fungi as primary to most cancer. Many of these are chitin based organisms. Cancer is a multicellular breakdown in cell communication. That one atom per cell of cesium takes on a new dimension if it is all bioaccumulated in parasites or fungi. I have been wondering about this for some time…specifically the hot spots of internal cesium. They arent 'supposed' to be there. Chitinous microorganisms present a possible confluence of causation in cancer. Consider that cancer was relatively rare before the nuclear era. Parasites were causing illnesses of all kinds throughout history. Heres the point; the cellular communication, and of particular interest, the bioelectric field may be 'short circuited' by the combined action of fungi, parasites and their bioaccumulated hot spots of radiation
        Ingrid Naimans article…one of many…on parasites, herbs and cancer. She is starting a clinic in Equador
        http://www.cancerchecklist.com/purification/parasite_problems.html


        Report comment

        • wormwood, garlic. Good to de-worm every year or 3. Bitter something too…..


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
            Dr Clark was all about black walnut and clove. Later she added electronic frequency therapy. Simoncini was right that the cancer science does not know the answer, even though they know 1000 and 1 things about genetics and cancer promoters.
            About six or so things are required for cancer…but they all relate to the essential health, integrity and communication of the cells. A healthy diet, exercise, a peaceful mind, herbs…these all over-ride, to a large extent, the 'stochastic' nature of low level radiation.
            Only by seeing radiation and the cell in a new way can science over turn the failed ICRP model and the reality of epidemiology of nuclear accidents become accepted, thereby ending the stronghold of the nuclear industry. As it stand, the failed economics of nuclear is our only hope. Its shameful…


            Report comment

            • My bad, Black Walnut.
              Use economics. Dont let them rape ratepayers.
              It helps, speak out at other sites too. I do often.


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                stock, I think my points here are good. Chitin, fungus, parasites, rise in cancer since the nuclear age, cell communication, and its disruption through bioelectric ion corruption by bioconcentrated fallout containing parasites. It fits together like a big jigsaw puzzle. It has science behind it. Just think of it this way; they USE these fungi or chitin organisms to sop up radionuclides in the industry because they are so good at it. Moreover, many of them (melanized ones) THRIVE off thatshit and actively seek it out. Now, at the same time we have sound clinical evidence that getting rid of those buggers and restoring the cell to health can cure cancer. The evidence that the two are related is de facto; parasites and fungi have been wreaking havoc since forever, but cancer is on the rise since the nuclear era and Chernobyl showed that low levels kill. Ion exchange is a key factor. Amino acids can act as ion exchange material also. The combination of pathogens, fungi and radiation goes a long way to explain the situation. Autoradiographs show INTERNAL hot spots of cesium….how do they get there? The body does not allow anything bigger than some molecules to pass, not hot particles…I would think Our digestive sieve is very very fine!!


                Report comment

              • Ya Code, saved as draft article for the future. stock out


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                stock, while youre at it, grab the rest of my thread which is here
                http://enenews.com/forum-off-topic-discussion-thread-non-nuclear-issues-new-as-of-january-2017/comment-page-60?replytocom=869769#respond
                did you see the amazing cell communication take over of the ant zombie fungus?


                Report comment

            • I do clove in my coffee…lol…its awesome when you get used to it.


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                wormwood works too. This is the ingredient in the famous drink of absinthe, and what they made illegal. A deeper study shows the wormwood didnt hurt anybody and the whole absinthe scare was manufactured by the wine makers who were losing business. Good absinthe is a VERY nice drink


                Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
          if cancer was a thing of pure random chance, the one DNA stand that didnt make it and spun out of control, as the science of radiobiology asserts, then your chances of getting cancer would not depend on your over all health, your immune system, diet and exercise. But this is not the case.
          The new science of radiation physics will realize that the cell wall plays an important role, not just the nucleus. Simoncini was right about genetics…they arent 'written in stone', they are expressed depending on extracellular and intracellular communication. The cell wall is key because of the ion channels, the proteins and the extracellular matrix which extend the function of the cell to act in synch with the rest of the body. You are one animal, and so the cells have to act as one. The cell is not a jumble of tinker toys, its a functional unity…a little animal as it were.
          Cancer isnt a genetic disease, its not a singular cell gone wrong, its a problem of cellular communication and cellular health over many cells.
          The banana equivalence 'lie' is actually very complicated. The lie is that all ionizing radiation fits into one category of bodily influence. Simple observation shows this is not correct. A dose of radiation from one type of radionuclide can cause systemic ill health, while a larger dose of radiation from another radionuclide can be benign, even healthy
          Our radioactive ocean, our radioactive body. The danger is not in the dose, the danger is in the…


          Report comment

            • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
              I think code was suggesting something about excess energy/time.


              Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                But hey, just guessing.


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                not excess energy/time. Thats the concept Im fighting against. Rather the problem with low level fallout may be the ion concentration/distance. This is the ionic field which has a communications function. Think of it like rubbing a stick with copper dust and laying it across a car battery.
                radiobiology recognizes two types of pertinent cell communications systems that influence radiation toxicity. 'short range Gap Junctional Intercellular Communication and long range Distant Cell Signaling Intercellular Communication, mediated by soluble transmissible factors and propagated by Brownian active or passive diffusive motion.'
                In typical biological scientist mind set, they find the tinker toy bits (phosphorylation of connexin43 protein for gap junction signalling, secretions of TGF-β, interleukin-8, serotonin and others), but they miss the energy field effect. Studies show that small modifications of the bioelectric field can produce wild deformations, or promote tissue and limb re-generation and also cure cancer.
                The essential idea is that the ICRP model with its single DNA strand hit does not fit observed reality. Meanwhile, radiation dose from fallout is very low and scientists cant for the life of them grasp how it could do anything. But the combination of low level radiation that is bioconcentrated at the cell surface, or 'bridging' several cells by say fungal hyphae brings a new plausible theory of low level fallout toxicity


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                "Not excess energy/time. Thats the concept Im fighting against. Rather the problem with low level fallout may be the ion concentration/distance."
                Yeah fair enough, I did forget about distance there.
                I find it interesting that you are fighting against excess energy/time though.
                So like, unsuitable excess energy, over time but also divided by distance? Vaguely speaking, I mean, we'd have to consider lymphatic/lymphocytic function, energy transfer mechanisms (glutamine/atp/atm, etc), additional supporting "sources", all kinds of shit.
                Like I still got this theory that "gravity" is an inherent property/function of matter. Like, it doesn't move, so it moves things.
                And I get this feeling "space" isn't space, but more like a voronoi diagram (but like a gauss field, roughly speaking, I was reminded of SVD or something?), so there's no…empty stuff, it's just that density or energy to mass ratio is variable.


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                "I find it interesting that you are fighting against excess energy/time though."
                Its a conceptual problem endemic to the nuclear health science community. Strictly speaking, everything involves energy. Its just that the energy is so damn low…its not the means of destruction.
                If a ruler ordered his men to commit suicide, would you blame the energy/time of his voice or the command note for their deaths?


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                "If a ruler ordered his men to commit suicide, would you blame the energy/time of his voice or the command note for their deaths?"
                Well, I'd probably think he's an asshole and his men/women (don't to discriminate) are fucking stupid. Otoh, if you consider it as an appeal to supporting some of this shit, it almost seems reasonable.


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Yeah excuse my typing, hope you can understand.


                Report comment

              • earthsmith earthsmith
                Humans know not how they know nothing.


                Report comment

          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
            If you really want to understand what is going on read this book:
            Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine Paperback – August 22, 2003
            by Gabriel Cousens M.D. (Author)
            https://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Live-Food-Cuisine-Gabriel-Cousens/dp/1556434650
            Written by a brilliant medical doctor.


            Report comment

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
              And read this book:
              Hiroshima to Fukushima: Biohazards of Radiation (Science Policy Reports) 2014th Edition
              by Eiichiro Ochiai (Author)
              https://www.amazon.com/Hiroshima-Fukushima-Biohazards-Radiation-Science/dp/3642387268
              Written by a brilliant bio-chemist.


              Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
              Gabriel Cousens is good…I havent read Ochiai.
              What Im suggesting is a new idea; a synergic effect of low level nuke fallout that is bioconcentrated onto internal chitinous organisms or amino acids.
              For example, Dr Clark and Dr Simoncini see a direct relationship of fungus or parasites and cancer. Simoncini didnt go for the acid pH theory, or other holistic concepts. They both have clinical experience. If you kill the fungus and the cancer goes away, can you blame your dose of Fukushima radiation? Can you use this to debate with Beusseler or condemn the nuclear cartel?
              You see, cancer is on the rise concurrent with low level fallout. Why are some stricken with cancer from fallout while others are not? Simoncinis fungus or Clarks flukes and tape worms?
              The challenge is to understand why some radiation is dangerous and other sources, even at higher radiation doses are not. This idea tentatively helps bridge the gap


              Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Considering cancer rates, diets and such, what would you say are some of the most obvious to implicate fungi? Candida albicans, maybe some saccharomyces cerevisae? What else though? Should we look at other fungi in common "foods", or perhaps ones that are often often found in immunocompromised individuals?


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Again, I just have this fucking feeling, that it's always look like what is classifiably fungi. I've seen some interesting dual-state (in a biological sense) pathogens.


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Aspergillus? Shit, those images remind me of cancer.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_fungus


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Well, we know that Kombucha or whatever is used in that can't be good. The ACA suggests "it may kill you!" and russian olympic athletes didn't do badly on it.
                What about cordyceps though? I mean, have you seen those things in the rainforest (what was that movie, about the anti-cancer stuff, which revolved around ants?). So cordyceps kill those anticancer things. Shit. It fucking makes sense.
                https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-2011-12-11-r116


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Yeah I'm tripping hard.
                https://youtu.be/OGKlXbj7q9Q?t=451
                Those 3 songs there.


                Report comment

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
                “List of foods that contain malonic acid
                “alfaalfa sprouts, apricots, araica (dried), beans (black, great northern, lima, mung, navy, red kidney), black olives (canned), broccoli, butternut squash peel, carrots, chaparrall (dried), chocolate, ginger root skin, grape jam (commercial), green zucchini (dark), kombu (seaweed), limes, mangos (large, small yellow), nori sea weed (packaged), onions (purple), oranges (all kinds), papaya (Mexican), parsnips, passion fruit, persimmons (Fuji, regular), radish (daikon), red skin of peanuts, Tamari soy sauce, tomatoes, turnips (rutabaga), wheat grass.”
                https://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=5047


                Report comment

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
                “…Malonic acid (also known as malonate) accumulates in tumours – it is a common denominator of tumours. Certain foods contain malonate (see list of malonate-free foods in The Cure for All Advanced Cancers). The malonic acid content of foods has increased due to agricultural practices such as the use of certain pesticides, time of harvesting and methods of artificial ripening. For instance, organic oranges, carrots and broccoli do not contain malonic acid, whereas the ordinary varieties do. Some foods that contain malonic acid are: alfalfa sprouts, apricots, beans, broccoli, carrots, chocolate, kombu, limes, mangos, nori, onions, oranges, parsnips, tomatoes and wheat grass. All supplements needed to detoxify the malonates in your body are included in the 21-day program. …”
                http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20000830163022


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                OK, thanks Anne and Frank for your contributions to the subject…
                Lets narrow it down; Just answer this; what is the ratio of toxicity for Cs137 and K40 per becquerel of internal dose?
                Thats what we need to answer the question left above by Beusseler et al; how can they say fukushima is of no concern while the whole ocean is going belly up?
                let me repeat…just answer this, instead of posting chapters from Clarks book etc
                Lets narrow it down; Just answer this; what is the ratio of toxicity for Cs137 and K40 per becquerel of internal dose?


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                CS, here's an even simpler question. Let's do this all scientific-like, life expectancy and k-40 accumulation. Yeah I ain't no fan of cs-137. But this is all conflation, most people these days live longer than they used to, not saying anything about quality of life or anything like, just citing historical evidence.
                So like, even more k-40, even more cs-137, yet people are living longer. In a stochastic, average means sort of sense. Without citing the very unscientific bible, try and argue that.


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                Farth I dont care for your longer-life-despite-radiation argument. There is evidence ancient Egyptians lived as long or longer than modern humans. Some of the longevity info is questionable…and for example some of the longest lived people have the habits of their great ancestors.Belarus is showing reduced life span after Chernobyl. Also, its besides the point Im trying to make.


                Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
              see these six fundamental things required for tumorigenisis
              https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/parallel-pathways-of-tumorigenesis-38276
              Cell communications is at the base of all of them. It invalidates the ICRP idea that radiation results in a certain mathematical probability for a cell to mutate to cancer.
              Lets be clear; nobody knows for sure why low level nuclear fallout causes cancer. Cancer is still the big mystery for science. A new paradigm is emerging; it involves the cell surface and communication factors, ROS as well as cytoplasm and nucleus. Im adding the clinical observations of people like Simoncini and the fungal connection
              This is how we are trying to grasp the fundamental difference in toxicity of different radioisotopes, which are so far off those given by scientific extrapolation from the Hiroshima bomb survivors


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                Heres a real fundamental question;
                The question is this; How dangerous is that fallout along the beach compared to the background radiation?
                Woods Hole says that nuke fallout at 20,000 bq/m3 is no concern. They say its approximately twice as dangerous as background which isnt hardly dangerous.
                Now its obvious you must know two things;
                A) how toxic the fallout is and
                B) how toxic the background is
                Most people dont realize they dont know either one. No study can be found for cesium 137 or K-40 toxicity on humans. They extrapolate and guess, based on some bomb victims, a few accidents and some gruesome dog injections


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Excuse me, doing some inverse dynamics, in a way. I clap my hands when I hear extrapolation, I mean unless you use it as a method to suggest implicit constraint to improve your solver or integrator, your shit be blowin up. I don't know many things, but I what symplectic means.


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Think about this CS, try an integral. Yeah yeah, I'm just making shit up.
                So let's say you take all existing organisms, well okay, you can't do that. But let's say you consider the total mass/k-40 ratio vs life expectancy, let's say you then compare this in modern times (no, no remember, there's an awful lot of predetermined death in industry, so that's not exactly worth consideration).
                As a pro-nuker I would say that cs-137 correlates quite well with increased human life expectancy, further, I would suggest k-40 is quite necessary for death.


                Report comment

            • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
              Do you know what the ratio of cs-137 to k-40 was, say, 178234781 years ago? So like, I don't fucking know. You don't either.


              Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                Yeah that was meant as a reply to CS in the other thread, sorry about that.


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                the ratio of Cs-137 to K-40 200 million years ago is more or less known. There was hardly any Cs137 but there was a slightly higher level of K-40. But thats not the question…we want to know the ratio of toxicity per becquerel. We want the nuke industry to know it, the scientists to know it
                I have a tentative ballpark figure;
                Codes new potassium40 dose coefficient;
                K-40 = 0.013 nSv/Bq.
                Cs-137= 65 nSv/Bq
                thus the ratio of toxicity per becquerel of Cs137 to K40 is about 5000
                that is in contrast to Woods et al who say the ratio is closer to 1 and thus the stamp of safety to the deadly Fukushima disaster


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                More or less known, 200 million years ago, yeah okay, according to who and what? There was more k-40, but humans died quicker?
                Come on dude, you're gonna have to do better than that. I'm not a clever man, but you can probably figure that out.


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                F..are you wallpapering my wallpaper or am I wallpapering over your wallpaper? I thought I had an interesting subject going and I feel smothered by the flippant tangents, can you understand that?


                Report comment

              • Farthington MacMananus Farthington MacMananus
                I'm being sarcastic, because I think also don't know wtf is going and, and if you do, that would make you liar by omission. This is nothing new to me.


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                what is the value of knowing primordial radioactivity? For one thing, it gives a hint at how toxic or perhaps even useful background radiation might be to life.
                Regarding Cs137, since there were no constant generators of it, and it has a relatively short life, we can assume the level in pre history was close to zero.
                I estimate the level of K-40 radioactivity in proto cells at the beginning of life contained 1.25 million becquerels per cubic meter

                ------------------------------------------------------

                PlowboyGrownUp
                Addition to that hydrogen topic introduced by CodeSD a few days ago:
                "Gut hydrogenotrophs…In a process analogous to the way mammalian cells dispose of reducing power by reducing O2 to H2O, fermentative gut microbiota reduce hydrogen H+ to H2 to dispose of reducing power. [1] H2 formation occurs predominantly through the oxidation of pyruvate, formate or reduced NADH and FADH2." https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Gut_hydrogenotrophs


                Report comment

                • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24529916?dopt=Abstract
                  Parkinson's disease may be due to failure of melanin in the Substantia Nigra to produce molecular hydrogen from dissociation of water, to protect the brain from oxidative stress.
                  Brenner.


                  Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                    thanks for that link Hillbilly. "Melanin, a hybrid electronic/ionic conductor"
                    I was proposing that melanin could be an electrodynamic participant in radiaion damage or resistance some time ago…that aussie Angela was arguing against it as usual. The ability of melanin to chelate metals and also create the powerful oxidizer hydrogen peroxide is another clue differentiating nuke fallout from potassium radiation. Fallout radionuclides of high specific activity could bioaccumulate in neuromelanin creating a consequent biological cascade with deadly effect.
                    "t it has a cytoprotective function in the sequestration of redox-active metal ions under normal conditions but also has a cytotoxic role in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease. Thus, neuromelanin accumulates normally through the autooxidation of catecholamines and serves tightly to bind redox-active metal ions, processes which would accelerate under conditions of intracellular or extracellular oxidative stress. Based on the known properties of melanin, however, neuromelanin also has the potential for exacerbating oxidative stress, eg by generating H2O2 when it is intact or by releasing redox-active metal ions if it loses its integrity; these reactions also would modulate the reactivity of the neuromelanin. By overwhelming intracellular antioxidative defense mechanisms, such a positive-feedback cycle could turn a condition of chronic or repeated oxidative stress in vulnerable neurons into an acute crisis…


                    Report comment

                  • PlowboyGrownUp
                    'Dissociation of water', interesting.
                    Melatonin "Much of the damage inflicted by contact with radioactive substances is caused by free radicals. In this respect, melatonin might be useful for patients undergoing radiation therapy or for those who work in high-radiation areas."
                    Other places, 'light activates the pineal gland'


                    Report comment

                • GOM GOM
                  It is now well known that radiation exposure of normal tissues generates a sustained and apparently uncontrolled inflammatory process. Radiation-induced inflammation is always observed, often described, sometimes partly explained, but still today far from being completely understood.
                  Foreign antigens, possesses a dense-associated lymphoid tissue, and is particularly radiation sensitive because of a high mucosal turnover rate.
                  These characteristics make the gut mucosa a strong responsive organ in terms of radiation induced immunoinflammation.
                  Probiotic bacteria Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), among other Lactobacillus probiotic strains, protects the lining of the small intestine.
                  Probiotics & Miso
                  Simple

                  • Eiichiro Ochiai:
                    “…They are unaware of or ignoring the fact that radiation coming from the unavoidable byproducts of the nuclear power operation is indeed incompatible with living organisms.
                    “This fact, i.e., INCOMPATIBILITY OF RADIATION WITH LIFE, seems to be recognized by the nuclear industry. Hence, the nuclear industry and its associates (termed often “nuclear mafia”) are desperately trying to cover up the evil health effects of radiation. They have tried, and have so far been able to cover them up relatively successfully. This has been possible, only because the evil effects are basically subtle, not felt by the person affected, and have so far been confined to relatively small areas and few people (compared with the vast area of the entire earth and the majority of the human race).
                    “In the following short article we would like to show why radiation is incompatible with life, and hence that the 'nuclear' power reactors as well as weapons which produce radioactive material should not be on the earth….”
                    http://www.newagora.ca/fukushima-radiation-looms-by-eiichiro-ochiai/
                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                    I find this untrue; "The energy of a single atom of plutonium is enough to cause double strand breakage in one cell of the body that will induce cancer and mutations."
                    There are an estimated 10 double strand breaks per cell per day due to natural metabolic stresses and background radiation
                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079308/
                    Double strand breaks are an important measure or result of radiation damage. But a lethal dose of 0.1 micrograms of plutonium contains some 250 trillion atoms. Thats about six atoms per cell on average. The result is radiation sickness and death due to major metabolic dysfunction and death of cells. The victim is dead before they see cancer.
                    In low level fallout exposure, again there is a metabolic effect and the result is not a random chance of cancer from a single DNA double strand break but a metabolic morbidity factor that may manifest as clinical disease
                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar
                    From your link:
                    “NHEJ is critical not only for the repair of pathologic DSBs as in chromosomal translocations, but also for the repair of physiologic DSBs created during V(D)J recombination and class switch recombination….
                    “Therefore, patients lacking normal NHEJ are not only sensitive to ionizing radiation, but also severely immunodeficient.”
                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079308/
                    Perhaps nuclear radiation destroys NHEJ, Nonhomologous DNA end joining
                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                    the other week I found papers for several metabolic changes from radiation, including the change of cells to a more sugar loving metabolism (shift from an oxidative to glycolytic phenotype. glycolysis is frequently linked to cancer cell metabolism) and makes them into meat glue factories (aberrant expression of the proinflammatory protein transglutaminase-2 which is an important regulator of the Warburg effect, an important factor in tumorogenesis)
                    If you want to try and research your theory that radiation messes up the DNA double strand break repair machinery, what we are ideally looking for is something radionuclide specific. If it were me, I would start with the Ku-70 and Ku-80 proteins and see if the radiation cancer treatment establishment finds they can disable them with some kinds of radiation.
                    -----------------------------------------------------

                  • Im looking at the USS Ronald Reagan sailor in the wheelchair with his legs cut off…and in court they will use that argonne labs or very similar dosimetry to argue Fukushima didnt do it. And right here we have Hippie Dog and Farthington deriding me for explaining how that argonne labs data is wrong…and of course we have Jebus posting it, saying he isnt worried about that low level of radiation, and nobody knows shit about what an overburden is. Its Effed up Jebus Jebus November 16, 2017 at 12:35 am Log in to Reply Maybe you will put together solid work on the electrical aspects of the equation. The differential comes from somewhere. Is someone lying about activity levels? What do we eally know? Results show a differential… CodeShutdown CodeShutdown November 16, 2017 at 1:43 am Log in to Reply While the fallout quantity is in question…type and quantity (think unit three and four fuel pools, nano fuel alloys, USS Reagan, Hawaii etc), basically they arent lying about activity levels. There really is 1000x more natural radiation in the ocean than fallout and you really do have five times as much natural radiation as the ocean (per volume). What people have a hard time getting their heads around is that all ionizing radiation is not the same. You instinctively want to think the answer must lie in the QUANTITY..some unknown additive quantity of unreported fallout, chemical mixes and hot spots…and maybe its not so bad after all? This is a difficult hurdle. Busby says you can be off by a MILLION TIMES with that kind of thinking. CodeShutdown CodeShutdown November 16, 2017 at 2:03 am Log in to Reply the radioactive burden concept. What is the guideline limit for cesium fallout? The values given seem to vary widely and Ive never taken the time to make sense of it. Start with this; Bandazhevsky says a mere 70 bq per kilogram is enough to screw up your heart health…permanently. Thats the amount of radiation you get from potassium, coincidentally. But lets go higher…one limit given is 350 bq/kg. We want to get a feel for how much stuff this is. Anybody can and should check my numbers. Go to Wolfram Alpha…its not difficult. A do-not-exceed level of 350 bq/kg is a whole body burden of 25,000 bq. Convert that to the number of atoms and I get 35,250,000,000,000 atoms of cesium. By the way, thats five times the burden that Bandazhevsky says gives heart morbidity. So lets find the number of atoms of cesium per cell gives a body burden of 25,000 bq; there are # of cells in a human body = 1x 10^14 We see that there are about three times as many cells in a human body than the number of atoms that is an official toxic burden limit. Or an average of 1 cesium atom per three cells. There is maybe 100 trillion atoms in a human cell. To visualize this, imagine each cell represented by one square inch. 100 trillion square inches is a square area 157 miles x 157 miles. One atom of cesium out of 100 trillion atoms of normal body stuff is toxic! This isnt a random hit to your DNA; This is a systemic change in body metabolism. I have given many clues how… CodeShutdown CodeShutdown November 16, 2017 at 2:13 am oops, should read, imagine each ATOM, not cell, represented by one square inch (sorry metric people). If each ATOM is a square inch, then one cell would have 157 x 157 miles of atoms. Thats assuming my math is error free….wishful thinking at best! So that shows how little cesium it takes to change your metabolism, your mitochondria, your electrical impulses. It makes your body into a sugar loving, meat glue factory that manifests as cancer or some other problem down the line. But…how many times have I repeated this? Transglutaminase is 'meat glue' 'A TG2-induced shift in glucose metabolism helps breast cancer cells to survive under stressful conditions and promotes their metastatic competence.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24477458 'Transglutaminase is a tumor cell and cancer stem cell survival factor.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih… CodeShutdown CodeShutdown November 16, 2017 at 3:03 am many people probably dont realize that those official dosimetry papers are not substantiated by real world tests. Thats right, they are suppositions only. When real epidemiological data comes out of Chernobyl, radiation scientists scoff at it. But there have been a few studies, one of which was on dogs. They gave dogs enough radioactive cesium to kill them within weeks. I wanted to know…how much stuff are we talking about? lethal dose of becquerels for a person from cesium137 =10,080,000,000 bq (from a dog study) unless I made an error, thats 14,212,800,000,000,000,000 cesium atoms in your body kills you in a short time. That works out to about 140,000 Cs atoms per cell number of atoms in a human body= 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 if one atom out of each 500,000,000 normal atoms is a radioactive cesium atom, you die a painful death within weeks. That is an extremely small amount of stuff, very deadly! This is not one cells DNA getting hit and developing into cancer. This is a disruption of your entire biology. The radiation does not have to impact the nucleus. The cytoplasm, the cell wall, the mitochondria and metabolic pathways…your cells are mortally wounded. This is not common knowledge, much to my amazement. The nuke cartel does not want you to know…and most scientists are bamboozled on this, blinded by doctrine

No comments:

Post a Comment

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments