darthfader

Joined

• started 123 topics
• posted 1,424 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by darthfader

• 
  317

  Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

  by jgnat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

  his objection was my statement,.

  "i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Earlier in this thread, DJE posted a comparison between blood and that of peanuts. "Abstain from blood" could be compared to "Abstain from peanuts". At the time I meant to call him on that, bucause the "peanut" is a divisable thing and it' can have it's allergen removed. Technically, people arn't allergic to peanuts, they are allergic to part of the chemical composition of the peanut. In the past, removing those parts have been difficult and expensive and also ruined the taste...

  (Quoting Wikipedia):

  Allergen-free peanuts

  On July 20, 2007, the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University announced that one of its scientists, Dr. Mohamed Ahmedna, had developed a process to make allergen-free peanuts. Initial testing showed a 100 percent deactivation of peanut allergens in whole roasted kernels, and human serums from severely allergic individuals showed no reaction when exposed to the processed peanuts. Food companies have expressed an interest in licensing the process, which purportedly does not degrade the taste or quality of treated peanuts, and even results in easier processing to use as an ingredient in food products. [ 35 ]

  Comparing them further, we should be able to remove the "god allergen" from the blood and be able to use it.
• 
  29

  Stunning new arial photograph of NOAH'S ARK on Google Earth!

  by nicolaou in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  .

  wow!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Those pix are awesome. My faith is surely strengthened.

  LOL!!
• 
  21

  Ginger or Mary Ann?

  by streets76 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ginger..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Mary Ann.
• 
  38

  Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 03-20-11 WT Study (SINGLENESS)

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  single christians make the most of their singleness?.

  of christians, therefore, have come to.

  singleness in youth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Thanks Blonde. Great article analysis - I never knew how biased JF Rutherford was against women... sheesh!

  I always thought it was funny that all the married Elders in my congregation used to tell me to "Stay Single!"... Maybe they were not really happy with their wifes?
• 
  42

  Radiation plume no danger to Arizona

  by darthfader in

  1. social
  2. current

  this may be of interest to those of us in the southwestern us.

  in light of the graphc and story from the new york times -- which shows the flow over the pacific ocean and over the southwestern us: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science.

  this article discusses the exposure amount:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Villa, please post a link to the study you sited above -- the only reference I have is an article from Johns Hopkins University:

  Mental retardation. Kozlova et al. (31) studied 2,189 children from contaminated zones (15 to over 40 Ci/krn2) in the three countries; they had been irradiated in utero at different periods of gestation. The reference group comprised 2,021 children from zones with less than 1 Ci/km2 of contamination who were matched for age, socioeconomic level, and parents' educational level. They observed reduced intellectual performance (on psychometric tests) in the exposed group. These results are descriptive and do not take into account the parents' psychologic condition, even though this same study also finds a higher prevalence of psychologic disorders among exposed parents

  Case clusters in Europe and Asia Minor Down syndrome. Clusters of Down syndrome cases have been reported in several different European countries after the accident at Chernobyl: in West Berlin, 12 cases were observed 9 months after the accident, while only 2-3 were expected (32). An ab-normally high prevalence was also noted in the region of Lothian, Scotland (33). EUROCAT (European Reg-istration of Congenital Anomalies), a network of re-gional registers monitoring congenital malformations, was called upon to assess the significance of these clusters. In 1991, EUROCAT included 24 registers in 14 European countries, covering approximately 350,000 births a year (about 10 percent of the births in these countries). Its comparison of the incidence of Down syndrome before and after the accident at Cher-nobyl revealed no significant differences between the two periods (34). The apparent clusters that have been reported may result from different biases (e.g., improved screening and awareness, selection) (35). It is also highly prob-able that the medical teams studying the consequences of Chernobyl would observe some isolated clusters, and that they would be published more frequently than negative results (34).

  Once Again, It looks to me that the signal to noise ratio of these statistics is too high. There are many other biases that cant be accounted for that cloud the outcomes.

  I'm not arguing the point about the radiation fallout dangers, but I don’t want to blindly accept biased information from alarmists There are plenty of people who argue and fight on both sides of these kind of debates to make it very difficult to discern the real facts.
  Cheers
• 
  42

  Radiation plume no danger to Arizona

  by darthfader in

  1. social
  2. current

  this may be of interest to those of us in the southwestern us.

  in light of the graphc and story from the new york times -- which shows the flow over the pacific ocean and over the southwestern us: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science.

  this article discusses the exposure amount:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Latest information

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_us/us_west_coast_radiation_monitors

  LOS ANGELES – Government experts in the United States are keeping a close eye on any radioactive particles that could travel from Japan, and they may already be seeing trace amounts.

  A diplomat who has access to radiation tracking by the U.N.'s Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization told The Associated Press in Vienna that initial readings show tiny amounts of radiation have reached California. But it's not dangerous in any way — "about a billion times beneath levels that would be health threatening," the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the organization does not make its findings public.
• 
  42

  Radiation plume no danger to Arizona

  by darthfader in

  1. social
  2. current

  this may be of interest to those of us in the southwestern us.

  in light of the graphc and story from the new york times -- which shows the flow over the pacific ocean and over the southwestern us: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science.

  this article discusses the exposure amount:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Ok. First off, I am only trying to balance the concern that people have here (in the Southwest US) for the fallout from the Fukushima disaster.

  Villa, I take it your posts are on this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/social/current/207375/1/WORLD-WIDE-ALERT-ALL-JWN-MEMBERS-BRACE-FOR-NUCLEAR-FALLOUT-BULLSHIT-STORM-THIS-IS-NOT-A-DRILL I'll see if I can wade through that bulk of posts and some sense of what you are saying.

  Yes, I understand what radon is and where it comes from and why it's concentrated in basements.

  Everyone plays games with the figures, that's why Im trying not to take an alamrist position on anything. If you have some figures and peer reviewed articles on the ratio of radioactive material in bananas vs. inhaled fallout "dust" please point me in their direction.

  cheers.
• 
  42

  Radiation plume no danger to Arizona

  by darthfader in

  1. social
  2. current

  this may be of interest to those of us in the southwestern us.

  in light of the graphc and story from the new york times -- which shows the flow over the pacific ocean and over the southwestern us: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science.

  this article discusses the exposure amount:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Copied from Wikipedia Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_compared_to_other_radioactivity_releases

  Natural sources of radiation are very prevalent in the environment, and come from cosmic rays, food sources (bananas have a particular high source), radon gas, granite and other dense rocks, and others. The collective radiation background dose for natural sources in Europe is about 500,000 man Sieverts per year. The total dose from Chernobyl is estimated at 80,000 man sieverts, or roughly 1/6 as much. [ 1 ] However, some individuals, particular in areas adjacent the reactor, received significantly higher doses.

  Chernobyl's radiation was detectable across Western Europe. Average doses received ranged from 0.02 mrem (Portugal) to 38 mrem (portions of Germany). [ 2 ] For comparison, the dose received from eating one banana per day for one year is roughly 3.3 mrem.

  I happen to like Bananas...
• 
  42

  Radiation plume no danger to Arizona

  by darthfader in

  1. social
  2. current

  this may be of interest to those of us in the southwestern us.

  in light of the graphc and story from the new york times -- which shows the flow over the pacific ocean and over the southwestern us: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science.

  this article discusses the exposure amount:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  Interesting chart on the doseage of radiation for normal medical procedures in miliseverts.

  Naturally-occurring "background" radiation exposure

  We are exposed to radiation from natural sources all the time. The average person in the U.S. receives an effective dose of about 3 mSv per year from naturally occurring radioactive materials and cosmic radiation from outer space. These natural "background" doses vary throughout the country.

  People living in the plateaus of Colorado or New Mexico receive about 1.5 mSv more per year than those living near sea level. The added dose from cosmic rays during a coast-to-coast round trip flight in a commercial airplane is about 0.03 mSv. Altitude plays a big role, but the largest source of background radiation comes from radon gas in our homes (about 2 mSv per year). Like other sources of background radiation, exposure to radon varies widely from one part of the country to another.

  To explain it in simple terms, we can compare the radiation exposure from one chest x-ray as equivalent to the amount of radiation exposure one experiences from our natural surroundings in 10 days.

  Following are comparisons of effective radiation dose with background radiation exposure for several radiological procedures described within this website:

  For this procedure:	* Your approximate effective radiation dose is:	Comparable to natural background radiation for:	** Additional lifetime risk of fatal cancer from examination:
  ABDOMINAL REGION:
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Abdomen and Pelvis	15 mSv	5 years	Low
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Abdomen and Pelvis, repeated with and without contrast material	30 mSv	10 years	Moderate
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Colonography	10 mSv	3 years	Low
  Intravenous Pyelogram (IVP)	3 mSv	1 year	Low
  Radiography (X-ray)-Lower GI Tract	8 mSv	3 years	Low
  Radiography (X-ray)-Upper GI Tract	6 mSv	2 years	Low
  BONE:
  Radiography (X-ray)-Spine	1.5 mSv	6 months	Very Low
  Radiography (X-ray)-Extremity	0.001 mSv	3 hours	Negligible
  CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM:
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Head	2 mSv	8 months	Very Low
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Head, repeated with and without contrast material	4 mSv	16 months	Low
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Spine	6 mSv	2 years	Low
  CHEST:
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Chest	7 mSv	2 years	Low
  Computed Tomography (CT)-Chest Low Dose	1.5 mSv	6 months	Very Low
  Radiography-Chest	0.1 mSv	10 days	Minimal
  DENTAL:
  Intraoral X-ray	0.005 mSv	1 day	Negligible
  HEART:
  Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA)	16 mSv	5 years	Low
  Cardiac CT for Calcium Scoring	3 mSv	1 year	Low
  MEN'S IMAGING:
  Bone Densitometry (DEXA)	0.001 mSv	3 hours	Negligible
  WOMEN'S IMAGING:
  Bone Densitometry (DEXA)	0.001 mSv	3 hours	Negligible
  Mammography	0.4 mSv	7 weeks	Very Low
  Note for pediatric patients: Pediatric patients vary in size. Doses given to pediatric patients will vary significantly from those given to adults. * The effective doses are typical values for an average-sized adult. The actual dose can vary substantially, depending on a person's size as well as on differences in imaging practices. ** Legend: Risk Level Approximate additional risk of fatal cancer for an adult from examination: Negligible: less than 1 in 1,000,000 Minimal: 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 100,000 Very Low: 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000 Low: 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1000 Moderate: 1 in 1000 to 1 in 500 Note: These risk levels represent very small additions to the 1 in 5 chance we all have of dying from cancer.
• 
  42

  Radiation plume no danger to Arizona

  by darthfader in

  1. social
  2. current

  this may be of interest to those of us in the southwestern us.

  in light of the graphc and story from the new york times -- which shows the flow over the pacific ocean and over the southwestern us: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science.

  this article discusses the exposure amount:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  darthfader

  This may be of interest to those of us in the southwestern US. In light of the graphc and story from the New York Times -- which shows the flow over the Pacific ocean and over the southwestern US: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science

  This Article discusses the exposure amount:

  http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2011/03/17/radiation-plume-no-danger-in-arizona.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_phoenix+%28Phoenix+Business+Journal%29

  Radiation in the plume headed to the Southwest U.S. coast from Japan is not much different than people experience on a cross-country flight, according to state agencies in Arizona keeping watch on the situation.

  The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, Division of Emergency Management and Department of Health Services said Thursday that people in Arizona are safe from dangerous radiation. They also warned against taking potassium iodide at this point.

  “Between the state and federal agencies monitoring the situation, we are confident that there is no danger to the people today,” said Will Humble, ADHS director. “We are worried that people are taking medication that they don’t need and could create problems for themselves.”

  For more: www.azein.gov or email questions to [email protected].

  Read more: Radiation plume no danger in Arizona | Phoenix Business Journal