Please share far and wide!

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Mechanism By Which Radiation Destroys "Chitin" Which Destroys The Ocean Food Chains and Bees

Mechanism By Which Radiation Destroys "Chitin" Which Destroys The Ocean Food Chains and Bees

Many "critters" on the low end of the food chain rely upon "chitin" an amazing organic chain molecule with structural properties, optical properties, and even the ability to function as a sensory device for various electro-magnetic energies.

But what is most interesting to me, is that chitin is a particularly effective bio-concentrator for man made radiation and heavy metals.

Chitin is particularly strong with its chemical bonds, most acids cannot destroy chitin. But radiation is also VERY good at destroying the chitin bonds, thus destroying the chitin.
So radiation is destroying the basis of the ocean food chain.

Curiously enough, bees and butterflies also use chitin in their structures and functional features. Damage to chitin exoskeletons makes it easier for parasites to get in, and that is a main cause of bee deaths.

The scientific backup for all this is here:

CodeShutdown and myself are the discoverers / developers of the hypothesis.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE ON RADIATION DAMAGED CHITIN

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tweeted to

https://twitter.com/seashepherd
https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 unincredulous
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform

"Many kinds of seaweed produce chloroform, and fungi are believed to produce chloroform in soil.[citation needed]

Chloroform volatilizes readily from soil and surface water and undergoes degradation in air to produce phosgene, dichloromethane, formyl chloride, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen chloride.
 Its halflife in air ranges from 55 to 620 days. Biodegradation in water and soil is slow. Chloroform does not significantly bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.[5]"

Fungus mutation producing more chloroform?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBmUwi6mEo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






9 comments:

  1. It's not a valid hypothesis since the radiation doses are just way below the radar for any effect including bioaccumulation. No sale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bring nothing to the table but denial

      Delete
  2. You need to specify the dose levels required to destroy chitin. You disavowed tatal so I'm asking you for the numeric values to validate your hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean REC Radiation Equivalent Chitin (also applies to 1 Billion Chickens), lol

      Delete
  3. You need to specify the dose levels required to destroy chitin. You disavowed tatal so I'm asking you for the numeric values to validate your hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you are the pHD with huge government funding. Why don't you tell me how much Bq/kG of krill shell dried weight is necessary to create krill parasite and virus damage?

      Fuck! I don't even have any krill or budget to get them from a specific area.

      I hand you fucks the answer on a golden platter, and I get...you need to keep proving it.

      Delete
    2. You're the one that made the claim without validation. That's not how it eorks. It's no different than middle school science fair. You make a hypothesis, you do the research, you validate the claim. Many many undersea atom bomb tests of far greater magnitude did not destroy sea life. Why should a drop in the bucket matter? Hitchens and Occam's Razor are on my side.

      Delete
    3. In fact they did destroy sea life.. as the fisheries all collapsed during the bomb testing era... hmmm. I think we gotcha on that one. and if you come at me to cite papers i am afrais it is you who are misinterpreting the role of discussion forums.. this is not peer review time. Make a demand for burden of proof in your own res3earch.. and yeah we all know that stats are virtually meaningless these days.. regress that all you want but plenty of peer review is just semantic arguments and BS there is almost nothing of substance even being tried. How much kelp has been tested for radionuclides other than Iodine tracers? How many cubic liters of seawater do you test to assure there is a SAFE dose? I see you just spout off at the mouth with faith in your conclusions drawn from bag of water estimations and Instantaneous massive dose regressed down to k40... I say you are the one holding onto a dogma and phony show. Remember how many Bq are in a gram of k40 then try and remember the Bq that are in a gram of plutonium. Not here to do math for your "educated" ass. Then think about how many bananas it would take to make a PBq... more bananas than exist on this planet methinks... Your validation done by buddy-fucking "peer" reviewing in your precious ivory towers is hardly science any more since all they want you to do is validate previous findings with a newly worded argument. Remember that I am pretty sure since Stock and Myself are degreed in sciences that we are aware of the "level" of graduate work and post doc work in this area. You have nothing new and EVERYTHING from your list of replys has been straight from the 60's....

      Delete
  4. You are wrong again Loose. Sealife WAS destroyed by bomb testing. Look it up. All fisheries were extremely stressed to the point of collapse from bomb testing.

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments