SI
SI

 Coffee Shop | vitamins herbs supplements longevity and aging


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: E. Charters who wrote (8647)5/25/2012 9:33:21 PM
From: joseffy   of 10430
 
Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food.

Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food...

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (8703)5/26/2012 12:04:05 AM
From: E. Charters   of 10430
 
Yes, other than Marie Curie, a few Los Alamos scientists who also died of Cancer, the two fellows who worked on the first A Bombs, the 100,000 or so Japanese who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the scientists at Chernobyl, the cancer cases after Chernobyl, and the 26 or nuclear plant workers in the States since 1945 who died in accidents with handling of fuels and isotopes, relatively few people have died of direct accidents to nuclear sources, if any. The spectre people worry about rationally is the invetability of accidents getting worse, and fallout being insidious over time, as Fukushima has demonstrated capably. Or should we say incapably. I think given Murphy's law it is a very rational fear of the rare accident which will certainly happen. Coal of course is not clean. I am not sure we can get it clean, even with the Kerrick process and leaching. I think the only safe fuels are wind, water and sunshine, which ultimately all fuels come from. And wind is already dependable and economic, as the US, Danish and Dutch experience demonstrates. And I might add the 50 year romance with electric windmills that the US farmer had around the turn of the century. No nation had more windmills per capita ever.


Atomic Powered Air Generator - 1940

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (8719)5/26/2012 12:31:19 AM
From: E. Charters1 Recommendation   of 10430
 
yes, but is there a pill for all this?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: E. Charters who wrote (8722)5/26/2012 1:11:03 AM
From: Elmer Phud3 Recommendations   of 10430
 
yes, but is there a pill for all this?

I think you can buy them at Costco.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (8723)5/26/2012 6:55:11 AM
From: Gersh Avery   of 10430
 
Ahh!! thanks for that!! Time to go shopping!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (8719)5/26/2012 6:59:57 AM
From: Gersh Avery   of 10430
 
OK .. I'm a little out of sync here.

I can chew up a hundred posts real fast. So I stay away .. don't want to trash the thread out.

Butcha found a button or two of mine ..

You seem to be living in a fantasy world where everything the government says is blissfully true.
I also notice how strongly you support this version of reality.

They done wrapped a chain around your neck to DRAG your head into the sand.

I wonder how much of our tax dollars went into your brainwashing ..

Do you really want me trying to walk around in your head?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: E. Charters who wrote (8721)5/26/2012 9:04:09 AM
From: Gersh Avery   of 10430
 
Right now .. it's simple.

Some days there are more clicks than others.

Those clicks seem to arrive, in volume, with weather fronts, jet stream etc..

When there are a lot of them, some folks like to keep their vents closed a little. Shower if you are caught in the rain ..

A few simple things like that to shift the odds .. in our favor.

Just a little .. OK?

Then close down every single one of them before they break down .. not after.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (8725)5/26/2012 10:30:46 AM
From: Elmer Phud1 Recommendation   of 10430
 
Gersh

I read your posts with mixed emotions. On one hand I am encouraged that someone such as yourself can demonstrate your ignorance so clearly and unambiguously. Anyone with reasonable skills can see you have no data. Only pseudoscience. Nothing to back up your claim but a video made by people as lacking in data and as ill informed as yourself. Very little effort in required on my part. I just sit back and let you display your ignorance. To reasonable people, you make my case for me.

On the other hand, I know there are others out there who are as gullible and ill informed as yourself and only need a little encouragement to believe whatever nonsense someone such as yourself posts.

Such is the human condition and it's why we're where we are today.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (8723)5/26/2012 10:50:48 AM
From: E. Charters   of 10430
 
To GMO or not to GMO, that is the ingestion question. A Lamarckable inference.

i-sis.org.uk 

EC<:-}

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Gersh Avery who wrote (8726)5/26/2012 11:16:13 AM
From: E. Charters2 Recommendations   of 10430
 
Background radiation, that is the radiation which is found everywhere from environmental causes, in the air so to speak, has increased because of nuclear plants and nuclear testing 40 times since 1950. Today the background count, depending on elevation, is about 60 counts per minute.

What Fukushima may cause is Strontium, Cesium, Iodine and Plutonium fallout. It would be found in rain water and perhaps on this side of the pond, weakly in food. Some food containing potassium is already weakly radioactive. (Bananas)

Living in a granite building, flying in a commercial aircraft, radon from basements, lighting a gas lamp mantle, having an X-Ray, working in an underground mine, produces far more radiation exposure than Fukushima totally, but the type of contamination Fukushima spreads is worrying. It ends up being ingested in the body and getting into the bones, increasing leukemia.

Northern Ontario is about the most radioactive place on earth because of the large rock exposure containing granites and veins with pitchblende. Most of these occurrences are not mineable. Strangely where the best uranium deposits come from, Saskatchewan basin, there is a very low radiation level, because of the mass of very well sorted sandstone in the basin.

I don't know how to evaluate the link below, but it would not be the first time we have been lied to by government.

straight.com 

EC<:-}

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.