#Incineration in the Mainstream

Quote; " MSM..

Posted by Gerard on December 14, 2016, 9:44 pm

If as so often "crowed" "We" should concentrate on stories which are misrepresented in the mainstream media ("MSM"), what about those that don't make it into the MSM at all? Consider incineration guys. You see I know for a fact that the particles produced by both types of incinerator in this country are directly responsible for the spike in childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer throughout the age groups (and problems such as behavioural aberrations), I have worked "on the ground" in these campaigns. So is it in the MSM? NO.....but a bad media does not automatically make all those who oppose it paragons of virtue..Revolutions are bloody..and may I posit; "Revolutions incur a debt that evolution must pay".. If your interested.... https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-great-dragon-incineration-what-you.html

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

NIMBYs Posted by Gerard in reply to "MSM.." GOOD acronym that one Rhis! Despite my whole-hearted support (most sincerely), for the anti-fracking movement..I tend to regard many so called #FrackOff "concerned" as "Not in My Back Yardys" because they know; nada, zilch, the sq. root of jack about incineration or the threat it poses...and has been posing for a good while now..Am I surprised? No...but I reserve the right to remain disappointed...Oh and #EMP weapons..now that's a good one..even CND don't seem to know their a**es from their elbows there....! Top of Form Bottom of Form

Hospital waste incinerators are still the worst. Yikes - we can't blame NHS privatisers. Posted by ZEVolution in reply to "MSM.." ...on a slightly different note: hand-sorting and separating of domestic waste at home has been found by so many reliable studies to be extremely inefficient. So much so that in many German towns and cities it all gets chucked together again after collection and automatically and highly efficiently re-sorted. Add to that the fact that in many instances as many as five separate vehicle fleets were (often are still) being used to collect the poorly sorted refuse from the street/roadside recycling containers. Many experts insist that sorting waste at home really is a waste of time and energy given the 99%-plus efficiency of automatic sorting facilities plus the fact that far fewer vehicles (usually diesel) are required to collect it all. But hey, think of the jobs that'd be lost if unsorted domestic waste were to be collected everywhere by just one or two fleets instead of four or five. Jobs before efficiency… Top of Form Bottom of Form

They burn radio-active smoke detectors in municipal incinerators Zev Posted by Gerard in reply to "Hospital waste incinerators are still the worst. Yikes - we can't blame NHS privatisers." That's #Idiocracy (and yes "one" should understand that straight away), municipal incinerators consume the most plastic and that's where the dioxins and furans come from..I've said this before but I don't think people were listening.....Apart from radioactive nuclides there are no more active particles than these..most volatile of the volatiles..a benign end user..? I think not, I think not...* Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: They burn radio-active smoke detectors in municipal incinerators Zev Posted by Gerard in reply to "They burn radio-active smoke detectors in Municipal incinerators Zev" Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: They burn radio-active smoke detectors in municipal incinerators Zev Posted by Gerard in reply to "Re: They burn radio-active smoke detectors in Municipal incinerators Zev" Sorry link should appear on prev. post (they "send" themselves sometimes), .. https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/tag/paul-connett/ Top of Form Bottom of Form

..and this... Posted by Gerard in reply to "Re: They burn radio-active smoke detectors in Municipal incinerators Zev" You won't find David Icke campaigning about this stuff now will you? https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-philosophy-of-loss-leader-re.html Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Hospital waste incinerators are still the worst. Yikes - we can't blame NHS privatisers. Posted by Gerard in reply to "Hospital waste incinerators are still the worst. Yikes - we can't blame NHS privatisers." Same issue Zev without the investment in incinerators recycling could be handled far more efficiently..and yes as the smelly old hippy says "cut the packaging man!"  Own posts to The Lifeboat News message board edited at Admin's discretion..all others redacted or spell-checked only, with thanks (Ed.). *Quote; "here are two types of smoke detectors available for home use - ionizing and photoelectric. (325.3256) WISE Stockholm - The photoelectric smoke detectors are an improved alternative to ionizing smoke detectors which contain the radioactive isotope americium-241 (the decay product of plutonium-241). Most detectors are of the ionizing variety. Americium ionizes the air within a chamber of the smoke detector, enabling the air to actually carry an electrical current between two electrodes. When smoke particles enter the chamber, the current is interrupted, thus triggering the alarm. By contrast, photoelectric detectors contain a light source, and a light-sensitive photocell that is not directly in line with the light. When smoke particles enter the detector, they scatter the light beam, and the photocell detects the reflected light. This process triggers the alarm. Americium-241 emits alpha and gamma radiation. Ionizing smoke detectors contain up to five micro-curies (185,000 becquerels) of americium 241. It has been estimated that one micro-curie (37,000 becquerels) of americium 241, if evenly distri­buted, has the potential to cause 78 lung cancers. The International Commission for Radiological Pro­tection (ICRP) has set a maximum body burden for americium of 0.03 micro-curies (1,110 becquerels). Photoelectric smoke detectors have other advantages over the radioactive model: they are better at detecting smoky fires. About 75% of home fires are smoldering fires and account for most fire deaths. However, ionizing detectors are faster at detecting the smaller smoke par- ticles of open flame fires. Further, photoelectric detectors last much longer than the estimated ten year life span of the radioactive type." Go to: https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/325/non-radioactive-smoke-detectors For article and links. "Smoke Detectors: Non-Ionizing, Non-Radioactive, Nuclear-Free"  Quote; "Most people assume their homes are free from radioactive materials; however, check the fine print on the back of your smoke detector. If it says: " Americium-241 or AM-241 " it's radioactive, and according to a growing scientific opinion constitutes a potential bio-hazard. This radioactive material, which is contained between thin layers of gold and silver foil, can be released into the environment if the detector is tampered with, damaged due to fire, crushed in disposal or incinerated. While the amount of Americium-241 contained in each detector is considered "small" - in the range of 1 to 5 microcuries - it is more than enough to cause cancer if inhaled or digested. Also, reports such as those in THE PETKAU EFFECT (in the book section) warn about the harmful effects of continual low doses of radiation" Go to: http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/ysmoke.htm For full article. Top of Form Bottom of Form