Mmmmyes....and I have used unshielded radioactives sources. WHy didn’t you handle a piece of uranium instead of trinitite? Why didn’t they inject hi-levels of uranium or strontium directly into your flesh? Because isotopes vary wildly in their physiological effects - how is it you don’t know this?
One of the most common smoke-and-mirrors acts put on by nuke engineers is to provide the dosimetry math “proving” that bananas are more “dangerous” than nuclear fuels. They never stop to wonder, well hey, why don’t we just grow bananas instead of mining uranium? We’d get the regulators off our backs and put up a sign saying nuke power is green.
You know you didn’t ingest radioactive materials with that scan, right? And you didn’t ingest trinitite. Why dramatize the fact that you are “still alive” when you aren’t taking into account the types of radiation you chose to expose yourself to? “Higher radiation” doesn’t matter if you’re talking about bannas and you are limiting your exposure - why have you no clue about these parameters.
Re the “unscientific speculation”, I was responding to the assertion that there have been “no die offs” with proof of die offs. I do have a pretty good idea of what causes die offs and I have noted over the past few years the location and novelty of the type of die offs that are occuring and the way the various agencies say it’s unprecedented and they don’t know the cause. The fed gov will not permit funding to 0test for evidence because they are the insurers against nuke damage to the environment - they aren’t going fund anyone who is going to prove that the gov is financially liable.
I've handled uranium before, in chemistry class. It was a chalky yellow liquid, probably a suspension.
Why didn’t they inject hi-levels of uranium or strontium directly into your flesh?
Interestingly, UC Davis, where I got my PhD, ran a program for decades investigating the effects of radiation of different types on dogs. The program was discontinued in the early 1970s. The last dog used in the program, radioactive with strontium-90, died in the late 1970s at the ripe old age of 19.
You know you didn’t ingest radioactive materials with that scan, right?
I didn't need to ingest radioactive material, because it was injected directly into a vein in my foot. It was quite painful. I had about 740 MBq, or 20 mCi, or 1.5 mSv, of a gamma emitter injected, and the nuclear medicine clinic gave me a card to carry just in case I set off a radiation detector in the next couple of days.
Re the “unscientific speculation”, I was responding to the assertion that there have been “no die offs” with proof of die offs.
The unscientific speculation is not that there was a fish die-off, but that it occurred due to radiation from Fukushima, especially since at this point, any such radiation is negligible. No one disputes that there was a fish die-off, or even several die-offs. But the most likely explanation is an algae bloom. Many of those articles you linked attribute the fish kills to algae blooms. As for the fish kill off the coast of Vietnam, it is likely to be an algae bloom--although, given the area, it could be a toxic industrial spill. It is difficult to tell... the fish do not appear visibly marred, so the only way to know is by testing them and the water.