Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Strontium, An Evil One-Two Punch, now EPA Waffles Over Whether to Regulate It

stock here
Strontium does nto come out in large quanties in your run of the mill meltdown.    But when strontium burns on concrete, or burns through concrete, 100 times more comes out.  

If you are not familiar with Strontium, I have done quite a bit of work on it.
1) It gives you leukemia
2) Once in your body, it stays forever
3) It has a wicked one-two punch, one of the strongest
4) It accumulates in your bones, next to the red blood cell formation
5) It is highly soluble in water, any that didn't get out in the initial blasts and fires, is being dissolved out by the underground river, as we speak.

Read up here ----

Strontium. It is what's unsaid…
Announcement of Final Regulatory Determinations for Contaminants on the Third Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List

After careful review and consideration of the public comments, the agency is making a final determination not to regulate dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos sulfone.

The agency, however, is delaying the final regulatory determination on strontium in order to consider additional data and decide whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction by regulating strontium in drinking water.

As the evidence of the extreme harm to health inflicted by nuclear radiation mounts, the denialists are resorting to ever greater extremes, writes Chris Busby.

On the one hand, advancing the absurd claim that ionizing radiation is not merely harmless, but health-enhancing. On the other, closing down the experiment that would have provided the strongest evidence yet.

“The torture imposed on logic, reason and observational data by the advocates of nuclear power has now reached the level of clinical psychosis – a thought disorder in which reality testing is grossly impaired.”


  1. Natural uranium can spontaneously fission with a probability on a per gram basis. Its in Wikipedia. The distribution of fission products includes Sr90. Its really not a challenge for you to use an Excel spre

  2. spreadsheet to determine the number of Sr90 atoms born from the release of uranium in the atmosphere from burning coal the past say 50 yrs. Its really not hard at all. Its a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a very very large number. If only you knew of this modality. Then you would think twice about the rabbit hole. Its an easy exercise. You can also do that with the amount of natural uranium in the ocean.Its child's play for someone like you. Im surprised you hadn't done the exercise just for kicks. Its an epiphany for most environmentalists. Its why its so ironic that more Sr90 has been pumped in the atmosphere by coal and not nuclear. And its even more ironic that antinukes had a hand in it. Now thats tragic. That a whole movement whose core hatred of nuclear didnt stop Sr90 in large amounts from entering the environment from non nuclear sources.

    What are you afraid of finding out?

    That the demon you are directing your energies is not really responsible for what you claim in your tired pedestrian missives.

    Just something to think about if you really are interested in the truth.

    1. Classic lie of the nukist....

      If you are anti-nuke, you are pro coal.

      But why don't you just send over the spreadsheet, I will review it and publish it. you got my email, right?

    2. Read it again. I never said you were pro coal. Just the end result produced more coal. And hence more pollution and more importantly, more uranium up in the air.

      Are you denying coal contains uranium?

      Are you denying uranium doesnt spontaneous fission?

      Are you denying Sr90 isnt a fission product?

      Seems you are wrong on those three counts.

      Now do the exercise if you have the stones.

      I already know the answer. You have to work it for yourself to really understand. Really.

    3. Submit it for my quick review, lying nukist

  3. Oh and this thing about ionizing radiation being harmful. Yes it is in very large amounts. You just cant prove from science any of the ludicrous claims for just living on the planet getting bombarded with ionizing radiation.

    Looks like you need to take your case up with a higher power.

    1. Kuke, Goddard has a simple video even pro nukist can understand, please review it here.


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments