God(s) bless the U(N)SA
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2013, 03:37 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2013 03:42 PM by cjlr.)
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 03:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  The way I understand it is that the bunker busters basically irradiate relatively large areas.

Not so much. Use in high explosives can indeed disperse it. It is then toxic and potentially carcinogenic. But not because of its radioactivity. Heck, the tungsten used as an alternative in AP weapons is just as carcinogenic and toxic.

I'm not denying potential side-effects of uranium exposure among other materials. But it's not the goddamn radioactivity that's causing problems.

Ain't nobody but nobody going on and on about tungsten exposure causing problems. Nope, it'll def be that scary 'radiation' stuff, I mean, 'uranium' makes giant monsters, so it's gotta be bad for you...

It's bad science. It's sensationalism. And it minimizes the impact of making valid accusations of improper cleanup of hazardous materials.

(22-08-2013 03:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  It's on HBO...So if you have HBO Go you can watch it there. It's Episode 3.

Not in Canada.

(22-08-2013 03:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I watched the piece and I can't believe that is was faked in anyway...nor can I see a reason to do so.

Two words for you: confirmation bias Tongue.

(22-08-2013 03:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...10444.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/5/bro...ntaminated

One link only states that the accusation was made. The other explicitly credits lead and mercury...

(22-08-2013 03:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Ps. On a similar note to the discussion we had in the conspiracy thread there comes a point when the lack of substantial reporting and officially sanctioned information from the major networks gives rise to new independent news sources out necessity. Fox, CNN, MSNBC...Their coverage of the Iraq war was despicable, embedded bullshit and pentagon graphics, no coverage of the contractor corruption, rebellion, or accurate civilian casualty counts. Shock and awe and US causalities, Bush on his battleship and that was about it.

Yes, it was terrible coverage. So?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 03:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  The way I understand it is that the bunker busters basically irradiate relatively large areas.

Not so much. Use in high explosives can indeed disperse it. It is then toxic and potentially carcinogenic. But not because of its radioactivity. Heck, the tungsten used as an alternative in AP weapons is just as carcinogenic and toxic.

I'm not denying potential side-effects of uranium exposure among other materials. But it's not the goddamn radioactivity that's causing problems.

Ain't nobody but nobody going on and on about tungsten exposure causing problems. Nope, it'll def be that scary 'radiation' stuff, I mean, 'uranium' makes giant monsters, so it's gotta be bad for you...

It's bad science. It's sensationalism. And it minimizes the impact of making valid accusations of improper cleanup of hazardous materials.

(22-08-2013 03:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  It's on HBO...So if you have HBO Go you can watch it there. It's Episode 3.

Not in Canada.

Thats actually my mistake. I added some more sources to my last post...Watch the story from democracy now. These guys are inhaling and otherwise consuming the stuff (Iraq is one giant sandbox after all). You are correct it's not the radiation levels it's the contamination...but at the end of the end of the day birth defects are birth defects, kidney disease is kidney disease, etc.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
22-08-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 03:40 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Thats actually my mistake. ... You are correct it's not the radiation levels it's the contamination...

Well, that's all I ever wanted to hear.
Yes

(22-08-2013 03:40 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  These guys are inhaling and otherwise consuming the stuff (Iraq is one giant sandbox after all). ...but at the end of the end of the day birth defects are birth defects, kidney disease is kidney disease, etc.

No, absolutely. Contamination is a big problem.

That's why it's so infuriating to see such perpetual claims made about radiation, because it's not radiation at all that's problematic, and yet there very clearly are contamination side-effects, but associating the true claim with a very false claim makes the true claim come off worse.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 03:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 03:40 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Thats actually my mistake. ... You are correct it's not the radiation levels it's the contamination...

Well, that's all I ever wanted to hear.
Yes

(22-08-2013 03:40 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  These guys are inhaling and otherwise consuming the stuff (Iraq is one giant sandbox after all). ...but at the end of the end of the day birth defects are birth defects, kidney disease is kidney disease, etc.

No, absolutely. Contamination is a big problem.

That's why it's so infuriating to see such perpetual claims made about radiation, because it's not radiation at all that's problematic, and yet there very clearly are contamination side-effects, but associating the true claim with a very false claim makes the true claim come off worse.

We aren't all Quantum Physicists CJLR Thumbsup

Also correct me if I am wrong but the way I understand it the dust is radioactive...maybe not dangerous or detectably radioactive outside the body but radioactive none the less. ...and the military claims that the stuff is so heavy that it immediately settles and doesn't affect more than the immediate area...but I'm listening a scientist telling me all about how some of these particles have a near infinite range given the right atmospheric conditions.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
The news posted a message that the soldier Bradley Manning who got 35 years in jail for leaking a classified material including the video Collateral Murder, has a gender identity disorder.

[Image: 20130725.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
22-08-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 04:00 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  We aren't all Quantum Physicists CJLR Thumbsup

WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE.
Big Grin

(22-08-2013 04:00 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Also correct me if I am wrong but the way I understand it the dust is radioactive...maybe not dangerous or detectably radioactive outside the body but radioactive none the less. ...and the military claims that the stuff is so heavy that it immediately settles and doesn't affect more than the immediate area...but I'm listening a scientist telling me all about how some of these particles have a near infinite range given the right atmospheric conditions.

Oh, it's not not radioactive. Of course, nothing is utterly non-radioactive. Also, the farther it spreads the less concentrated it is; that is axiomatic.

If inhaled uranium particulate were a concern - overwhelming predominance of throat and lung cancer would result (and indeed very few if any effects besides). That's not the data...

Radiation is very hard to quantify. But anyway, the levels that would result from the wide dispersal of small amounts are much lower (so far as a comparison might be made) than living at high altitude in the tropics or an intensive course of medical imaging.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2013 06:32 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 04:00 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  We aren't all Quantum Physicists CJLR Thumbsup

WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE.
Big Grin

(22-08-2013 04:00 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Also correct me if I am wrong but the way I understand it the dust is radioactive...maybe not dangerous or detectably radioactive outside the body but radioactive none the less. ...and the military claims that the stuff is so heavy that it immediately settles and doesn't affect more than the immediate area...but I'm listening a scientist telling me all about how some of these particles have a near infinite range given the right atmospheric conditions.

Oh, it's not not radioactive. Of course, nothing is utterly non-radioactive. Also, the farther it spreads the less concentrated it is; that is axiomatic.

If inhaled uranium particulate were a concern - overwhelming predominance of throat and lung cancer would result (and indeed very few if any effects besides). That's not the data...

Radiation is very hard to quantify. But anyway, the levels that would result from the wide dispersal of small amounts are much lower (so far as a comparison might be made) than living at high altitude in the tropics or an intensive course of medical imaging.

I'm not really worried about anti-tank rounds contaminating my air/water/soil (fukishima can handle that) but I think it's pretty reasonably to assume that a lot of Iraqis, soldiers and contractors where exposed to this shit.

Also never let it be said that I derailed this thread Tongue

[Image: 1003196_519392338148474_1047072502_n.jpg]

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 06:41 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 06:24 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I'm not really worried about anti-tank rounds contaminating my air/water/soil (fukishima can handle that)

NO.
Shocking
NO IT CAN'T.
No
Unless you're part of the ground-zero cleanup crew and you don't take any safety precautions.

Nuclear fearmongering is just that. "But that radiation..." No. Do you like sunshine (or, forbid, tanning)? Do you undergo medical imaging? Do you take plane flights? All much more dangerous than standing even right outside a well-maintained nuclear reactor. The only reason any of them have problems these days is because they are not well-maintained because that would cost money (and logically speaking, of course if nothing has gone wrong yet, one need only extrapolate the trend to conclude nothing will go wrong ever) and spending money on scary nuclear death machines is bad politics because people are idiots who don't understand that nuclear power is one of the few stopgaps we have between skyrocketing oil costs and insufficient renewables...

Okay, so maybe my background makes that a sore point Wink.

(22-08-2013 06:24 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  but I think it's pretty reasonably to assume that a lot of Iraqis, soldiers and contractors where exposed to this shit.

They absolutely did. Dogshit infrastructure and medical care, woefully insufficient decon, a disinterested media... You can see the same thing in Somalia. The water just off the coast is, and has been for years now, "nasty shit dumping ground #1" for the world's unscrupulous waste disposal jockeys (so, y'know, the whole world). Apparently it's not good for your health when that washes ashore. Go figure.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2013 06:57 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 06:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 06:24 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I'm not really worried about anti-tank rounds contaminating my air/water/soil (fukishima can handle that)

NO.
Shocking
NO IT CAN'T.
No
Unless you're part of the ground-zero cleanup crew and you don't take any safety precautions.

Nuclear fearmongering is just that. "But that radiation..." No. Do you like sunshine (or, forbid, tanning)? Do you undergo medical imaging? Do you take plane flights? All much more dangerous than standing even right outside a well-maintained nuclear reactor. The only reason any of them have problems these days is because they are not well-maintained because that would cost money (and logically speaking, of course if nothing has gone wrong yet, one need only extrapolate the trend to conclude nothing will go wrong ever) and spending money on scary nuclear death machines is bad politics because people are idiots who don't understand that nuclear power is one of the few stopgaps we have between skyrocketing oil costs and insufficient renewables...

Okay, so maybe my background makes that a sore point Wink.

(22-08-2013 06:24 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  but I think it's pretty reasonably to assume that a lot of Iraqis, soldiers and contractors where exposed to this shit.

They absolutely did. Dogshit infrastructure and medical care, woefully insufficient decon, a disinterested media... You can see the same thing in Somalia. The water just off the coast is, and has been for years now, "nasty shit dumping ground #1" for the world's unscrupulous waste disposal jockeys (so, y'know, the whole world). Apparently it's not good for your health when that washes ashore. Go figure.

Yeah except there was a reactor disaster and it was not properly contained...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ater-leak/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_e...r_disaster

[Image: radiation-640x474.jpg]

You are saying that this is all bullshit? I would welcome such information, I'm seriously worried about this shit and I would sleep better at night if you could shed some light on the situation...I would like to start eating fish again.

Ps. I'm not against nuclear power, yucca mountain is safe and secure, waste transport is undeniably safe and secure (watched a video of some military guys grilling a transport pod on top of a pit filled with jet fuel and it didn't leak a drop)...but I am against building nuclear reactors on fucking fault lines.

found the video...it's fun to watch:



Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 06:50 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Yeah except there was a reactor disaster and it was not properly contained...

You are saying that this is all bullshit? I would welcome such information, I'm seriously worried about this shit and I would sleep better at night if you could shed some light on the situation...I would like to start eating fish again.

Yes, there was a problem. Several unlikely things went wrong at once, so the safety systems weren't quite able to compensate. An absolute worst-case scenario projection (worst-case!) will result in several hundred premature radiation-related deaths over the next several decades. This is fewer people than die in coal mines every year, so far as a 'safety of power generation' comparison stands.

Some radiation was released, yes. But, the reactors are designed pretty damn carefully! What was released was both small amounts of material, and materials with very short half-lives (as short as several days, for some). Unless you were like, five kilometres downwind, you're fine. Even then if you pretty much stayed inside for a couple days you're fine. It's literally less radiation exposure than handful of intercontinental plane flights or radioisotope imaging tests. Some bedrock is more naturally radioactive than the delta from that event.

You probably shouldn't eat any fish anyway, but that's because most fish stocks are either collapsed or collapsing, and a different matter.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: