The Secret of Perpetual Youth

I came across this on Facebook yesterday. It must have been written before 2009, when Michael Jackson died (at the hands of his doctor):

The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

I’m very sympathetic to the Fallout Hypothesis as an explanation for the upsurge in lung cancer over the past 70 years or so. In fact, I think it’s the best hypothesis around. I’ve explored it several times. Much better than smoking, which people have been doing for hundreds of years, if not thousands of years.

But I wondered about that last paragraph in the passage above. It suggested that those 715 billion lethal doses were still floating around in the atmosphere, and would continue to do so for 50,000 years. I can think of a number of good reasons for thinking that this might not be true.

The first of these is that radioactive fallout does, as its name suggests. fall out of the atmosphere, just like the ash and dust from volcanic eruptions eventually does. And given that after a large volcanic eruption the ash and dust seems to get washed out of the atmosphere after about 5 or 10 years, it seems plausible to suppose that the same thing happens with radioactive materials as well.

And where do they end up? 71% of the Earth’s surface is made up of oceans. So most likely 71% of all radioactive material in the atmosphere will end up in the oceans after about 10 years. And, given that atoms of uranium or plutonium are very heavy atoms, they’ll very likely end up on the bottom of the oceans pretty rapidly, and start sinking into the mud at the bottom for the exact same reason.

The remaining 29% will come down on the continental land masses somewhere or other. But since these land masses are also being regularly washed with rain, quite a lot of it will end up in rivers, and be carried out to sea, to join the 71% already in it. About the only places this won’t happen will be in places where it never rains, like deserts or polar regions. And if it is kicked up from there high into the atmosphere once again by winds, then once again the odds are 71% – 29% that it’ll end up in the oceans.

By this reasoning, about the only places where radioactive materials will remain for long periods of time will be on absorbent areas of ground like bogs or marshes or ploughed fields or gardens where it can easily be absorbed and retained. The places this is least likely to happen will be on rocky terrain, and in cities in which more or less every inch of ground has been paved over, and provided with storm drains to carry away rainwater.

So the way I see it, 99.99% of all radioactive fallout is going to end up at the bottom of the ocean after 50 or 100 years. And in the case of Fukushima, 99.99% of it is already in the ocean.

And what’s so dangerous about radioactivity anyway? I mean, is it harmful as, say, that kind of tobacco smoke that can go through walls and along telephone cables with consummate ease? I bought a geiger counter a year or so ago, purely out of curiosity. And when I got it working, it reported radioactivity in my little flat. But it was a normal background level of radioactivity, found almost everywhere.

What’s dangerous about energetic radioactive materials that are spitting out alpha and beta particles and gamma rays is that these particles and rays can do a great deal of damage to living tissues.  Having a tiny fragment of uranium or plutonium embedded anywhere in your body is like having a tiny machine gun firing tiny bullets in all directions all the time. It will gradually kill the cells around it – something that I explored a few years ago using a simple computer simulation model to propose a simple non-genetic explanation for cancer. The same fragment of uranium on the floor of a room, or even in your pocket, would do you no harm at all. It’s only if it gets lodged somewhere in or on your body that it’s dangerous.

And, the way I see it, living in an environment with an unusually high level of background radiation might well be a good thing, because the effect of it will be to kill off the slowest reproducing cells in your body and replacing them with faster reproducing ones. The secret of perpetual youth may lie in keeping a lump of plutonium on your mantelpiece where it can bathe you in just enough radiation to kill off your tired old cells and replace them with young ones.

And beyond that, I’m beginning to wonder whether the modern terror of all things radioactive may be a phobia almost exactly like contemporary capnophobia: more imaginary than real.

One last thought. If someone dies of lung cancer, there should be a way of finding out quite easily whether it was a consequence of having a tiny piece of plutonium or uranium or strontium or polonium embedded in their lung: Just leave a photographic plate on their chest for a few days, and see whether anything shows up on it. If any bright areas appear, there’ll be a good chance that there’s something radioactive in there. Has this ever been done? I’ve never heard of it being done. It should be very easy to do in a mortuary where bodies usually lie undisturbed for days before burial or cremation.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Secret of Perpetual Youth

  1. Interesting thoughts! I’ve often wondered about the radiation from all the very hundreds of tests in the past. But I also wonder about the many “tests” people undergo via the doctor – cancer is on the increase. Do “they” say, it’s increasing because we can diagnose it better? Thanks for your post.

  2. Fredrik Eich says:

    I added a few pretty charts to the comments including a new rain chart.
    http://disq.us/p/1hkpzc3

  3. Fredrik Eich says:

    Oh and the chart of lung cancer to fallout period.

  4. nisakiman says:

    I’m not sure you’re right about so much getting washed into the sea, Frank. Sure, some will without a doubt, but all those radioactive dust particles which land on soil will just become part of the soil, and remain. Because after all, unless an area has been completely deforested, the topsoil will not get washed away. The rain soaks through to the water table or underground springs. So I think that a large proportion of the particles that make landfall will just be integrated into the soil. And as for the particles that land on desert, they will constantly be getting picked up by the wind and blown hither and thither. Where they end up is anybody’s guess.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think that a large proportion of the particles that make landfall will just be integrated into the soil.

      You may be right. If so, since topsoil always seems to be getting deeper as more material is deposited on top, it’s soon going to be quite far underground. It’s why, for example, in Britain 2000 year-old Roman villas are three or four feet underground now. Stuff slowly gets buried deeper and deeper.

      picked up by the wind and blown hither and thither. Where they end up is anybody’s guess.

      On average, over the whole planet, 71% of them will land in the ocean, 29% will land on a continental land mass.

    • beobrigitte says:

      And as for the particles that land on desert, they will constantly be getting picked up by the wind and blown hither and thither. Where they end up is anybody’s guess.
      It depends on particle weight. And water to wash it into the soil.

  5. C.F. Apollyon says:


    A vaguery to add to your thinking and calculations if you would care to indulge it…
    Q: What is the “intent” of a nuclear weapon?
    A: ???
    To kill. It is a weapon afterall. Are we astounded when we design and build a car that functions as-designed/built? If you build a car specifically to “test-crash” it, are we astounded when it functions “as advertised” according to the outcome.

    ^Hybrid – Dogstar^

    I think this is going to be a stretch for some, and not so much for others, but why would anyone be astounded or marvel at the fact that “a weapon” does what it was designed to do? Is it because of the shortcomings with respect to oversight in experimental discoveries? Is oversight in the “Now What” category even possible? Japan sure as shit has been paying a hefty toll for quite some time. Newton is prolly correct and incorrect here in that we just couldn’t see the reactions to the reactions as they would react over time over times over time. Action and reaction becomes simultaneous there. And it occurs to me, that action and reaction becomes simultaneous both here AND there. Because at some point over time over times, there will become here.
    The question is…OK…so…now we know. Now what?

    A weapon that was designed to kill, “but has only been used to kill ‘in anger’ on two occasions.” So fucking what? They never considered that it would not only kill…but keep on killing.


    I had some thoughts on this with respect to “The Morgellon’s” issue. Specifically…”radiation looking for a place to go.” A lot of “turning and burning” going on there with respect to spin and spins of particles. A lot of time and times, and a lot of time and times changes transpiring. From the point of detonation, all the way through completion. And when I speak of completion, I’m thinking in terms of purpose and purposes. So yeah…a LOT a time and times over a lot of time and times. I have some thoughts/theories on the concept of Tachyons here, and why they appear to behave the way that they do, and the “times” that they operate in. Specifically in reference to these “time distortions” that they appear to either create or manifest due to a coalescing of certain energies. If you think of time itself as an energy there…perhaps that will help.
    EX: In a nuclear detonation or reaction of ANY kind, there are things at work there, that both allow and prohibit that detonation…all at the same time, AND…at different times.

    Makes me think of Thoth’s thoughts in The Emerald Tablets with respect to twisting and turning to avoid the evil that traveled in straight lines. Thoth is/was/is “the keeper of all things Alchemy” afterall. And if you look at even the most crooked and twisted of lines over time? They become a straight line. They become A to B = X. Destination being X, but A/B/X become simultaneous at some point. At which time, all time and times become a single point. At least to certain observers/participants, all points converge into a single point…a singularity. Find the beginning, find the end. Sound familiar? It should. Science has danced all around that concept for a very long time. Plus, Thoth wrote that he had found the secret to immortality. Prolly still creeping around here somewhere “to keep an eye on things.” ;-)

    If you think what they are doing with particle accelerators, perhaps that will help. Just remember the intents and intentions that lead up to these “scientific investigations” and their purposes. And don’t forget the concept of “pure discovery” based on “we simply don’t know, but we think we know, and we want and need to know, and here’s how we think we are gonna know it.” That’s what “science” is looking for…the beginning. But more that that, they are trying to duplicate and/or emulate it. If that don’t scare the shit out of someone, I don’t know what would, nor would I want to know what that “scary something” might be. I just wonder if many of these scientific investigations have stopped to consider the concept of “find the beginning, you simultaneously find the end.”
    If you look for something…you will find it

    I’ve long held that “Uranium” is a “kicker” for life. A time-keeper of a different order and ordering with respect not only to energy/energies, but spin and spins. Yeah….motion. Think of the hand that spins the paddlewheel and keeps it spinning, and maybe that’ll help. Because there is much more than just Uranium here. Lotta different types of Uranium. Maybe some reasons that it gets all agitated and pissed off at being slung around at ridiculous speeds for ridiculous amounts of time just so that it can be made into a weapon to kill people. May even make it so fucking mad, that it goes out and kills someone. Anyone. It don’t care who…it don’t care when. Damnit, you got me in this pissed of state to do this…and goddamnit…I’m gonna do just that.

    Sound familiar? It does to me.

    This is scary stuff. No doubt about it. But if the channels that got us here aren’t helping us also get away from it? Yeah…maybe it’s time for some out of the box types of thinking. We let the genie out of the bottle afterall. The least we can do is listen to it. Prolly and thing or three to learn there. I think we do our elders a disservice not to listen. Up to, and including, The Genie itself. ;-)


    I dunno…maybe we just might learn something.
    Maybe there is a reason that knowledge/information is spread out in the way that it is.
    Maybe there are MANY reasons that knowledge/information is spread out in the way that it is.
    Keep plugging Frank.
    You are doing good things methinks.
    <3

    ^Hybrid – Higher Than A Skyscraper^

  6. beobrigitte says:

    And, the way I see it, living in an environment with an unusually high level of background radiation might well be a good thing, because the effect of it will be to kill off the slowest reproducing cells in your body and replacing them with faster reproducing ones. The secret of perpetual youth may lie in keeping a lump of plutonium on your mantelpiece where it can bathe you in just enough radiation to kill off your tired old cells and replace them with young ones.
    At this point in time that’s a no go. Telomeres do age, too. and much faster when cell division is increased.

    So the way I see it, 99.99% of all radioactive fallout is going to end up at the bottom of the ocean after 50 or 100 years. And in the case of Fukushima, 99.99% of it is already in the ocean.
    We do fish there. Since an accident like this hasn’t happened before we have no idea what happens. But we will have a WHO (funded by idiots) who will instantly blame smoking for intestinal cancers occurring as tobacco control will dictate.

    The first of these is that radioactive fallout does, as its name suggests. fall out of the atmosphere, just like the ash and dust from volcanic eruptions eventually does. And given that after a large volcanic eruption the ash and dust seems to get washed out of the atmosphere after about 5 or 10 years, it seems plausible to suppose that the same thing happens with radioactive materials as well
    Judging from what so far has been observed around Chernobyl this is the case.
    I have been told that Polish youngsters were given iodine after the Chernobyl accident happened. Nothing like this happened in Britain.
    Nevertheless,
    http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/environment/mysterious-radioactive-cloud-moves-towards-uk-as-plane-which-tackled-chernobyl-called-in-to-find-source-1-8407845
    ???? I do have a few questions.

    So, here is a modern science “investigation”:
    http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v110/n5/full/bjc20144a.html

    The interesting part is:
    Conflict of interest

    Background: Methods: Results: Conclusion: Materials and methods Results Discussion Conflict of interest References Acknowledgements Figures and Tables

    RA, IB, AF, SS and VB are employed by the Cancer Epidemiology Unit at the University of Oxford, which is supported by Cancer Research UK. BM is employed by the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, USA.

    Cancer research UK? What is their CEO’s wage(s) and who pays them?

  7. beobrigitte says:

    The Secret of Perpetual Youth
    is just living, enjoying life, just see age in a mirror when your skin decides to create a few folds and laugh about it.
    Go and have a drink, a smoke and tell your kids these days to stop worrying about fat, sugar cigarettes and whatever the BBC tells you to worry about. Turn off the telly and HAVE A LIFE!

    So far works a treat for me.

    • nisakiman says:

      It’s like going to a wine tasting and they serve sparkling water.

      It won’t be long before that statement becomes reality if ‘Public Health’ get their way.

  8. Lepercolonist says:

    “Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere.”

    5 months later on Jan. 11,1964 the U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health linked smoking with lung cancer. Coincidence ? More like a cover-up for the radioactive fallout.

  9. waltc says:

    I just read this long, semi-dry but mind-blowing article on–for want of better–the science of mind-blowing. Goebbel’s techniques down to algorithmic science. If you read it, ignore where the guy gets briely partisan (tho, if anything the partisan use should apply to the other team) but, in terms of bending the public about smoking, I found this part apt:

    In describing their “behavioral” methods of persuasion, Nix gives the example of a private beach owner who wishes to keep the public out. He might, Nix says, put up an “informational” sign that seeks to inform attitudes, such as: “Public beach ends here: private property.” Or he could seek “to probe an altogether much more powerful, underlying motivation” by putting up a sign that says “Warning: shark sighted.” The threat of being eaten by a shark, Nix claims, will be more effective. Similarly, in videos made by Cambridge Analytica’s research wing, the Behavioral Dynamics Institute, the group describes strategies for appealing directly to people’s underlying fears and desires in ways that are continuous with the insights of behavioral economics, but that seem less scrupulous about employing lies or half-truths to influence System One motivations

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/04/20/kahneman-tversky-invisible-mind-manipulators/

  10. prog says:

    The current back pedalling by gov/PH on diesel emissions reminded me of the late Kitty Little, who warned about it many years ago and was ignored, no doubt for political reasons.

    One wonders how much unnecessary suffering and death has been caused by charlatans through ignorance, prejudice and bad science in specifically to demonise smokers. And, I guess, owners of petrol vehicles.

    http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html#.WOYFHm8rKHs

    • RdM says:

      Thanks for the reminder about Kitty Little, who should always be in our thoughts, prog, but no need to include all that tracking data &etc,
      People, look to what you think to post as links! Take out the garbage!
      http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
      works perfectly.

      • prog says:

        Point taken, but that apart someone with authority/influence should be asking some very serious questions. The public have been appallingly deceived, not least smokers and motorists. Diesel owners are getting very worried about resale value and punitive taxes. All they did was follow official advice and are now paying the price. Similar to the recent butter debacle, when trusted advice turned out to be flawed and people realised they’d been needlessly eating those dreadful spreads for decades.

        • prog says:

          Mind you, I don’t anyone will seriously be held accountable with nil chance of the then incompetent Chief Medical Officer being stripped of his knighthood and pension. In reality, he and his cronies (inc the vile Bliar) have probably done more harm than Saville. Some people seemed to be at the point of digging him up and crucifying his corpse…

      • RdM says:

        Actually I see I’m wrong and apologise (although in a general case it works to say strip off everything after an .html part, like sid= & so on) – in this case the site adds it back in regardless.

  11. margo says:

    Also see the Low Level Radiation Campaign site http://www.llrc/index.htm
    And ENE News. A lot of dead fish have been washed up on the west coast of America since 2011 (Fukushima). (Scientists are “baffled”) Presumably the ‘bottom feeders’ get struck first by the plutonium etc that sinks down, then the fish who eat them, and so on up the food chain. And it’s not just cancer that radioactive stuff causes.

  12. Pingback: No Doubt | Frank Davis

  13. RdM says:

    And, the way I see it, living in an environment with an unusually high level of background radiation might well be a good thing, because the effect of it will be to kill off the slowest reproducing cells in your body and replacing them with faster reproducing ones. The secret of perpetual youth may lie in keeping a lump of plutonium on your mantelpiece where it can bathe you in just enough radiation to kill off your tired old cells and replace them with young ones.

    This chap seems to think so: he wears slightly radioactive beads… used to sleep with radioactive rocks under his pillow:
    http://www.radiation-hormesis.com/my-experience/

    Also there: http://www.radiation-hormesis.com/hot-springs/
    “Who could doubt that it must be the radioactivity that was responsible for the curative properties of the health springs? Certainly not Surgeon General Dr. George H. Torney, who wrote (ca. 1910) that “Relief may be reasonably expected at the Hot Springs in . . . various forms of gout and rheumatism, neuralgia; metallic or malarial poisoning, chronic Brights disease, gastric dyspepsia, chronic diarrhea, chronic skin lesions, etc.”

    Further details were provided by Dr. C.G. Davis, who noted in the American Journal of Clinical Medicine that “Radioactivity prevents insanity, rouses noble emotions, retards old age, and creates a splendid youthful joyous life.”

    Professor Bertram Boltwood of Yale explained the scientific basis for the cures in the following way: The radioactivity was “carrying electrical energy into the depths of the body and there subjecting the juices, protoplasm, and nuclei of the cells to an immediate bombardment by explosions of electrical atoms,” and that it stimulated “cell activity, arousing all secretory and excretory organs . . . causing the system to throw off waste products,” and that it was “an agent for the destruction of bacteria.” Radon was believed to be so important to water that it was considered its life element. Without it, water was dead. Radon was to water what oxygen was to air.

    And:
    http://listverse.com/2015/07/10/10-places-around-the-world-where-you-can-take-a-radium-bath/

    I see Ikaria island in Greece on the list, some of its springs (at Therma) considered the most radioactive in the world.
    Looking it up, I see a Guardian article on longevity there, The island of long life –
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/31/ikaria-greece-longevity-secrets-age
    Gregoris Tsahas has smoked a packet of cigarettes every day for 70 years. High up in the hills of Ikaria, in his favourite cafe, he draws on what must be around his half-millionth fag. I tell him smoking is bad for the health and he gives me an indulgent smile, which suggests he’s heard the line before. He’s 100 years old and, aside from appendicitis, has never known a day of illness in his life.

    – which completely misses the radioactive aspect – not a mention, lots of speculation…

    So does a very long NYTimes article, studies all sorts of considerations, but none of radiation:

    Interesting though in that if follows a chap diagnosed with lung cancer in his 60’s who went back home there from the US to die… and didn’t.

    For a more scholarly investigation, see
    Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674188/
    The comparative and Bayesian analysis of the published data shows that the linear no-threshold hypothesis does not likely explain the results of these recent studies, whereas they favor the model of threshold or hormesis. Neither cancers nor early childhood deaths positively correlate with dose rates in regions with elevated natural background radiation.”

    It all confirms my belief that ASH’s “no safe level” of tobacco use is woefully mistaken if not a deliberate lie, since it slavishly follows the linear no-threshold dose model, whereas I think the hormesis idea is much more likely – positive benefits of small or even moderate use.

    But now I think I’ll see if I can find some naturally radioactive rocks on mail order as well!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s