Admin wrote:In an interview with Linda Moulton Howe released today, Nevels said the following (which I think is most definitely relevant to Strom's article):Monroe Nevels: [...] So, when the silver tube shield was off to look for beta, you didn't get any radiation reading, but when you were measuring gamma radiation, that's when it pegged on the .5 meter and on the 5 meter it was hovering around 7 (milliroentgens)?
[...]
So then I dropped it down to the 50 and I still didn’t get anything. I dropped it down to the 5 and I noticed the needle was twigging a little bit. So, then I dropped it down to the .5 and it blasted all the way over to the right, pegging out of the range.
Still no threat to health whatsowever if you are not exposed to it over a long period of time
Health Physics Society wrote:below 5–10 rem [a year] (which includes occupational and environmental
exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent.
Another model is the adaptive-response model, which postulates that certain doses of low-dose radiation may even be beneficial. Typically the adaptive response is induced with 1–100 mGy of [gamma]-rays, doses 100–10,000 times larger than the natural background of [approx.] 0.01 mSv/day. This model was first proposed in 1984 to explain the finding that cultures of human lymphocytes growing in low concentrations of radioactive thymidine developed fewer chromosomal aberrations than cultures of nonradioactive lymphocytes when both were challenged with high-dose radiation (22). Other studies also seem to support this model
I mean anyone can look stuff up - who doesn't lol. No what I want is your authority. You see I can look up anything online - do some maths and then state facts till my hearts content. But If I have not worked in that field I could make some dodgy calls.
Storm wrote:Right, well I could play games Stephan but I see no point considering the significance of the data re this case and the aggressive nature in which you have decided to react.
me, aggressive ? NO way. You have continiously attacked my views, you even said that you enjoy it. Here's what I would interpret as aggressive or rather as an attempt to asperse me:
1. Clearly your not professionally qualified to dictate what is safe and what is not. Your sources are credible but you are not.
[...] it seems that you are more concerned with being right and assuming a peeing up the wall competition. Which is a shame. I have no need to count stars on shoulders I am qualified and had you been we could have had an academic debate about the data found on that night.
[...] I am sorry but you are being a fool.
DeanF wrote:Incidentally, if there are any other good books you can recommend, I'd love to hear of them.
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest