Radium vs Tritium

How to build the perfect shield for your measurements? Discuss it here!
sschrammel
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 Jul 2016, 02:01
Contact:

Radium vs Tritium

Post by sschrammel » 21 Jul 2016, 22:32

If you have a beta light in your collection of emitters, you need to read this.
All tritium tubes leak
You are exposing yourself and your family to 5000x normal background levels.
If your detectors worked at this frequency, you would get a reading of 1100 cps
The radium wristwatch in your collection poses no danger whatsoever.
The science behind the laws regulating radium and tritium is pure garbage.
These two need to be reversed. The only safe use for tritium is detonating
hydrogen bombs.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 11:40
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by Steven Sesselmann » 22 Jul 2016, 07:31

When making extraordinary claims like this, it would be great if you could give some references to credible studies into this . Not suggesting your claims are wrong, but you need to provide more information.
Steven Sesselmann | Sydney | Australia | gammaspectacular.com | groundpotential.org | rephopper.com | beejewel.com.au |

sschrammel
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 Jul 2016, 02:01
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by sschrammel » 22 Jul 2016, 08:05

Sorry about that , that same thought occurred to me just after hitting send.

If you go to the rosensteil tritium lab sample preparation page you will find that my claims are substantiated.
Other labs also warn of contaminating samples with the leakage from wristwatches worn indoors.
The count I mentioned is of water vapor condensation. This is where liquid scintillation would be handy


Ref: http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/tritium/

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 11:40
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by Steven Sesselmann » 22 Jul 2016, 11:28

Steven Sesselmann | Sydney | Australia | gammaspectacular.com | groundpotential.org | rephopper.com | beejewel.com.au |

sschrammel
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 Jul 2016, 02:01
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by sschrammel » 22 Jul 2016, 12:11

The main interest in this topic is that tritium bio accumulates in DNA . This is pure speculation on my part.
Deuterium plays a role in biological timing akin to the clocking of computers. The evidence of this can be found in
Studies of the circadian rhythm affected by it. I postulate that DNA information in the structuring of protium and
Deuterium is jeopardized by tritium. Hence no immortality.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 626
Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 11:40
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by Steven Sesselmann » 22 Jul 2016, 12:49

Are you suggesting that H2 and H3 accumulate preferentially in DNA ? In other words that the concentration of H2 and H3 in bio mass exceeds the background levels measured in water?

I am not a chemist, but would be interested to know if the valence bonds are stronger in H2 and H3 than they are in H1.
Steven Sesselmann | Sydney | Australia | gammaspectacular.com | groundpotential.org | rephopper.com | beejewel.com.au |

sschrammel
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 Jul 2016, 02:01
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by sschrammel » 22 Jul 2016, 20:50

H2 and h3 are concentrated during electrolysis. I'm no chemist either, but I think that answers your question.
When a DNA molecule devides it does so along a chain of hydrogen atoms , billions of them. I'm guessing they
All need to be protium. I can find no information on this. The best refence on the biological effects can be found in the Cerrie report on internal emmiters

sschrammel
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 Jul 2016, 02:01
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by sschrammel » 22 Jul 2016, 23:10

cerrie tritium

WillemG
Posts: 20
Joined: 11 Jul 2016, 18:00
Location: Roetgen-Germany
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by WillemG » 28 Sep 2016, 21:08

Here a short note on the kinetics:
Indeed, bonding of tritium (T) (and deuterium, D) is generally stronger than hydrogen (H) -bonding, not because of valence bonding itself (electron configuration is the same), but because of difference in vibrational levels, due to different nuclear masses.
As the energy level for T-bonding is lower than for H-bonding, the T-bond is more stabilized. Activation energy for chemical reactions is for T-bonds higher too.
So, the kinetic isotope effect of T vs H is a factor 6, meaning that chemical reactions involving T are generally a factor 6 slower than with H.
Furthermore, much of the kinetics depends on the position of energy levels of ground state, transition state and final state, which can result in either a large isotope effect or even none.

In case of chemical equilibrium there is a difference in T- and H- situations too.

So I can believe from these considerations that T and D can accumulate in biomatter.

The way how T acts on e.g. DNA is a very complicated matter: there is direct influence due to radiation (although low beta energy); other effects could be due to the chemical isotope effects.
T also reacts in different ways with aminoacids compared to H, leading to stronger chemical bonding too.

I will report later on this matter with some literature refs.

Kind regards,

Willem Glasz

sschrammel
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 Jul 2016, 02:01
Contact:

Re: Radium vs Tritium

Post by sschrammel » 16 Nov 2016, 15:17

Thanks for the reply.
It really isn't very complicated. The day you were conceived, you only had a single copy of your DNA code. The backbone of that code was protium combined with spacers of deuterium. If these spacers were substituted with tritium and they disintegrated, you would have been aborted.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest