quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

"Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation
that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one
week afterward. In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working
with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert 50"
Geiger counter. One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a
residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm. "That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the
Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal
background radiation inside the

http://www.ziopedia.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3776

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Interesting post.

The thing that nags me is why are there claims that its radiation poisioning that is causing cancer?  i remember japn in ww2 and they had much of the same problem, likewise chernobyl etc.   So without much thought it seemed to me to be quite reaosnable it was radiation since they claim increased levels.

Apparently they found vaporized steel, that combined with the EM blackout for several surrounding blocks the puzzle does sort of fit together to make a picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Interesting post.

The thing that nags me is why are there claims that its radiation poisioning that is causing cancer?  i remember japn in ww2 and they had much of the same problem, likewise chernobyl etc.   So without much thought it seemed to me to be quite reaosnable it was radiation since they claim increased levels.

Apparently they found vaporized steel, that combined with the EM blackout for several surrounding blocks the puzzle does sort of fit together to make a picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck
These higher dosages can also cause genetic mutations within the DNA in future generations. Do some research into The Radium Girls of the 20's/30's in Ottowa, IL or the post Chernobyl or Love Canal/Three Mile Island/Hiroshima clusters and genetic mutations in the following generations. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck
These higher dosages can also cause genetic mutations within the DNA in future generations. Do some research into The Radium Girls of the 20's/30's in Ottowa, IL or the post Chernobyl or Love Canal/Three Mile Island/Hiroshima clusters and genetic mutations in the following generations. 

sounds like a good way to create monsters and clean up the genetically inferior at the same time!  Will it work on politicians too?  LOL

So then you agree that that if there was a nuke it would show up in a higher rate of cancer incidences?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck
These higher dosages can also cause genetic mutations within the DNA in future generations. Do some research into The Radium Girls of the 20's/30's in Ottowa, IL or the post Chernobyl or Love Canal/Three Mile Island/Hiroshima clusters and genetic mutations in the following generations. 

sounds like a good way to create monsters and clean up the genetically inferior at the same time!  Will it work on politicians too?  LOL

So then you agree that that if there was a nuke it would show up in a higher rate of cancer incidences?

I have to apologize I reversed non stochastic and stochastic in my earlier post. I was rushing to get to work and didn't edit.

No I would not necessarily agree, the levels of radiation exposure in a nuke are different than the radiation ecposure one gets from xrays or even on a plane trip. Meaning it may be a factor in those predisposed to cancer to begin with but it will not cause cancer in everyone willy-nilly (non stochastic effect). Does that make sense?

I can't reproduce the entire thing but try this link for clarification of Non stochastic and stochastic effects of radiation exposure. Cancer from radiation is caused by chronic (repeated) low levels of exposure over time. Although there does seem to be a link between skin cancer and radiation exposure more so than any other.

A nuke going off would be high level single exposure causing radiation sickness and death. In other words, you aren't going to be around long enough to get cancer. Again the basis of it is the amount of radiation that one is exposed to and the period of time of exposure.

Then again there seems to be higher predisposition to cancer in those resulting generations in areas of high volume short term exposure. Places like Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Marshall Islands etc. I would still go with this being a genetic abnormality caused by radiation exposure since the ensuing generations weren't obviously around at the time of the exposure.


http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think he's trying to claim a nuke was used at the Pentagon. Which of course is complete and utter nonsense. The smallest nuclear yield possible is far larger than what happened at the Pentagon.

As to an EM blackout I think he's claiming an ElctroMagnetic Pulse effect from this single supposed detonation. Which is quite simply impossible. EMP detectable outside the zone of total destruction is not associated with nuclear detonations below 10km altitude. Also the power of the EMP is directly related to the yield of the detonation and a tiny explosion would create a very weak EMP unlikely to cause disruption even at the point of detonation. 

As usual unreal is listening to conspiracy nuts, in this case antisemites as well, over reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck
These higher dosages can also cause genetic mutations within the DNA in future generations. Do some research into The Radium Girls of the 20's/30's in Ottowa, IL or the post Chernobyl or Love Canal/Three Mile Island/Hiroshima clusters and genetic mutations in the following generations. 

sounds like a good way to create monsters and clean up the genetically inferior at the same time!  Will it work on politicians too?  LOL

So then you agree that that if there was a nuke it would show up in a higher rate of cancer incidences?

I have to apologize I reversed non stochastic and stochastic in my earlier post. I was rushing to get to work and didn't edit.

No I would not necessarily agree, the levels of radiation exposure in a nuke are different than the radiation ecposure one gets from xrays or even on a plane trip. Meaning it may be a factor in those predisposed to cancer to begin with but it will not cause cancer in everyone willy-nilly (non stochastic effect). Does that make sense?

I can't reproduce the entire thing but try this link for clarification of Non stochastic and stochastic effects of radiation exposure. Cancer from radiation is caused by chronic (repeated) low levels of exposure over time. Although there does seem to be a link between skin cancer and radiation exposure more so than any other.

A nuke going off would be high level single exposure causing radiation sickness and death. In other words, you aren't going to be around long enough to get cancer. Again the basis of it is the amount of radiation that one is exposed to and the period of time of exposure.

Then again there seems to be higher predisposition to cancer in those resulting generations in areas of high volume short term exposure. Places like Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Marshall Islands etc. I would still go with this being a genetic abnormality caused by radiation exposure since the ensuing generations weren't obviously around at the time of the exposure.


http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.htm

right so you are saying that long term exposure to elevated radiation or short term exposure to high radiation will cause sickness and or health issues, but not necesarily in ever single person.  (some people are healthier than others).

That and also y0ou are saying that extreme exposure even short term will result in severe sickness and death.

That and not all radiation is created equal.

The gov site would agree with that.

So they believe that elevated levels of radiation is causing this to show up in those people with a weakend condition as you suggested.

i do not see a dispute between what you said and the article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think he's trying to claim a nuke was used at the Pentagon. Which of course is complete and utter nonsense. The smallest nuclear yield possible is far larger than what happened at the Pentagon.

As to an EM blackout I think he's claiming an ElctroMagnetic Pulse effect from this single supposed detonation. Which is quite simply impossible. EMP detectable outside the zone of total destruction is not associated with nuclear detonations below 10km altitude. Also the power of the EMP is directly related to the yield of the detonation and a tiny explosion would create a very weak EMP unlikely to cause disruption even at the point of detonation. 

As usual unreal is listening to conspiracy nuts, in this case antisemites as well, over reality.

Man, if there was EMP you'd see a whole bunch of stuff down, communications to computers, and even modern vehicles.

Generic reasons for comm going down in the area of the WTC would simply be the destruction of some base stations, and worse, the destruction of the phone switches in the basement of the North or South tower (can't remember which one, but the switches were flooded.)

On the radiation front, another hazard in industry and with nukes is the neutron flux. 

thornhappy