View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:07 pm



Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
 Interesting Articles/Blogs 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
I cannot confirm any of the information reported. I am aware that disinformation is one of the 'tools of the trade' in the various media formats today. Feel free to post any discrediting information on these posts to limit and help prevent fear-mongering practices/hysteria. I will add more links to this thread as I find them.

Uranium hexafluoride release tonight at Honeywell Works, Metropolis, IL.
http://optimalprediction.com/wp/uranium ... opolis-il/


Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:48 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:40 pm
Posts: 2803
Location: Illinois
Thank you for your post.

_________________
MY OUTSIDE RADIATION MONITORING STATION:
South Beloit, Illinois - GMC200 Outside on HEPA air purifier, ground level, facing West.
http://netc.com/chart/view.php?n=1%3AEB5A139C


Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-fac ... -disaster/


Pontius Pilate: And what is 'truth'? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?


Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:33 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
http://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/cesium.pdf


Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
Post HPS
http://hps.org/hpspublications/radiatio ... eets.html#

http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiati ... ancer.html

"Radiation Sources, Doses, & Cancer

We will now combine information from various other charts in this section. First, though, remember that without radiation exposure, the odds of getting cancer are 1 in 2.4 (or 42 percent). This means that of 100 average people I know, including me, 42 of us may get cancer at some time in our lives. In addition, if I go to the doctor and have a pelvic CT scan (dose <= 1 rem), my cancer odds stay 1 in 2.4 (or 42 percent). If I have 10 CT scans, my cancer odds are now 1 in 2.3 (or 43.7 percent). If I live next to the perimeter fence around a nuclear power plant for 40 years, my cancer odds are 1 in 2.4, the same as baseline with no extra radiation exposure.

With that information we now have a better understanding of the approximate risks of radiation doses. We can see that radiation doses less than 10 rem are unlikely to cause harmful effects and only slightly increase our chances of getting cancer. Whether to be concerned or not is still a personal decision. Taking steps to keep our exposure to any potentially harmful agent reasonably small is important. It is a personal responsibility for ourselves and our families.

We must, however, try to make informed decisions based on the real and not the perceived risks in our everyday lives. When we do that, we can lower or eliminate the higher risks over which we have control and not agonize over lowering risks that are already low. Often, we believe that if radiation is present there is a high risk. As can be seen from the charts and the information in this section, we know this is not true. To compare the chances of getting cancer from radiation exposure to other more common chances of diseases or accidents, see our Probability Table.

X Rays & Cancer

Let’s look at the risk of cancer, then, from some basic x rays. Here are the radiation sources, the approximate dose of radiation you get from them, and how much your chances of getting cancer increases in your lifetime as a result of that radiation dose. Remember, with no extra radiation dose, your odds of getting cancer in your lifetime are about 10 out of 24 (or 1 in 2.4) or 42 percent."


Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRG8nUDbVXU
(15m 30s)

http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf


Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:51 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
http://www.wise-uranium.org/dviss.html

http://www.wise-uranium.org/


Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
U.S. NRC denies petition against use of depleted uranium munitions
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has denied a petition dated June 1, 2000, filed by Doug Rokke, Ph.D. The petition concerns the use of depleted uranium (DU) by the U.S. Department of Defense and all services. The petition requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hold a hearing to consider ''the revocation of the master DU license for the U.S. Department of Defense and all services, implementation of substantial fines and consideration of personal criminal liability.'' As the basis for this request, the petitioner stated that ''the continuing deliberate use of DU munitions during battle and during peacetime is resulting in serious health and environmental consequences.''
> view Director's Decision DD-01-01 (Jan. 9, 2001) external link
> see also: Notice in Federal Register, January 16, 2001 (Vol. 66, No. 10) p. 3621 external link


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-01 ... 1-1175.htm

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 3621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1175]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030-28641, License No. 42-23539-01AF Department of the Air
Force; Docket No. 030-29462, License No. 45-23645-01NA, Department of
the Navy; Docket No. 040-08767, License No. SUC-1380, Department of the
Army]


Notice of Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, has issued a director's decision with
regard to a petition dated June 1, 2000, filed by Doug Rokke, Ph.D.,
hereinafter referred to as the ``petitioner.'' The petition concerns
the use of depleted uranium (DU) by the U.S. Department of Defense and
all services.
The petition requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(Commission or NRC) hold a hearing to consider ``the revocation of the
master DU [depleted uranium] license for the U.S. Department of Defense
and all services, implementation of substantial fines and consideration
of personal criminal liability.'' As the basis for this request, the
petitioner stated that ``the continuing deliberate use of DU munitions
during battle and during peacetime is resulting in serious health and
environmental consequences.''
By letter dated September 8, 2000, and addressed to the petitioner,
the NRC staff acknowledged receiving the petition, and stated that
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 the petition was referred to the Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards for action, and that it would be
acted upon within a reasonable time.
The NRC staff requested the U.S. Department of the Air Force, the
U.S. Department of the Army, and the U.S. Department of the Navy to
respond to the petition. The licensees responded on October 30, 2000,
and the information provided was considered by the staff in its
evaluation of the petition.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards has determined that the request to hold a hearing to
consider the revocation of the military licenses authorizing the use of
DU, implementation of substantial fines, and consideration of personal
criminal liability, should be denied. The reasons for this decision are
explained in the director's decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 [DD-01-
01], the complete text of which is available in ADAMS for inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and via
the NRC's Web site (http://www.nrc.gov) on the World Wide Web, under
the ``Public Involvement'' icon.
A copy of the director's decision will be filed with the Secretary
of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR
2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this
regulation, the director's decision will constitute the final action of
the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's
decision in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of January 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William F. Kane,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 01-1175 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:20 pm
Posts: 22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mthza0yiE0


Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:54 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 9 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.