Well, as far as I know, her So a moderate exposure to alpha radiation can account for some of Betty Cash’s symptoms.
Alpha radiation could not affect those in the car. It would not pentetrate the vehicle. In fact, Alpha radiation is an internal hazard and will be stopped by the outer layer of the skin. The only way that Cash could seriously be affected by it is through inhaling the particles. Evidence of the particulate would be found in her nose hairs and internal organs. Again, those medical records you want to protect could have cleared this up.
Gamma burns from highly penetrating radiation. This would likely cause deep gamma penetration within the body, which would result in uniform whole body irradiation rather than only a surface burn. In cases of whole body gamma irradiation (circa 10 Gy) due to accidents involving medical product irradiators, some of the human subjects have developed injuries to their skin between the time of irradiation and death.”[/I] (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning)
So her symptoms are
specifically related to ionizing radiation! Thus you are simply mistaken in your assessment here Astrophotographer..
Actually not. The amount of damage reported is equivalent to the dose one would receive. We are talking about levels of over 200 rem, which results in severe blood damage and death. I spent 20+ years in the navy's nuclear propulsion program and was familiar with radiation exposure and its effects (I had a lifetime dose of about 3 rem over the entire time period). However, to refresh my memory, I went to this site, which gives you an idea of the effects of acute exposure to ionization radiation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/NucEne/radexp.html
She did not suffer these things. Other than burns and the hair loss.
As for the car - Well obviously the occupants inside the car suffered MUCH less severe symptoms, so we can assume the car was somewhat protective but what of the car itself. What DO you expect the results to be in that direction?
For gamma radiation, the car would provide very little, if any, protection. It would be almost worthless for shielding (it takes 4" of steel to cut the stength of gamma radiation by a factor of 10). The car itself, when exposed to such levels of ionizing radiation would become activated. Just like any other metal. Therefore, the car would have registered as being radioactive. It did not as best I can tell. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary.
With distance, the radiation levels decrease at an inverse square rule for point sources. This means as you get closer to the source, the radiation level drastically increases. The helicopter crews would have been exposed to far more radiation than Cash and the helicopter skin would probably have no more shielding than the car (and the plexiglass windows in front would probably have been worse). This basically should have killed the crews but there was no mass deaths of helicopter crews reported. Did they cover that up as well?
Based on this, I doubt she was exposed to any form of ionizing radiation.
It seems that what knowledge you have of ionizing radiation has to do with websites. I can only assume from this that physics/medical science was not your area of expertise when they made you a scientist.
This is pointless. You assert many things here that are obviously false to any reasonable person. Of course to point out HOW false would take a great deal of time and research and THIS is what the UFO debunker relies on. The negative tactic is to get the UFO proponents searching out evidence to refute red herrings, thus wasting their time on useless and pointless endeavours. All the UFO debunker has to do is throw out a few lines of generalised and unfounded assertion, then sit back and watch the UFO proponent waste time on research that the debunker already knows the answer to.
No, I am asking why this massive formation of helicopters and their operations were unnoticed by just about everybody that should have noticed them. Where is the radar data from the date in question? What did air traffic controllers see that night? A large formation of helicopters certainly would not go unnoticed. The point of this is that the "investigation" of the case only went so far as to present one side of the argument. You have thrown away your intellectual curiosity to simply accept the story as told. You have not even examined the "other side of the coin". Dismiss it if you will but the lack of any significant evidence for such massiive helicopter activity suggests that there were not that many helicopters in the area and the case has some serious problems associated with it.
Another red herring! I am NOT claiming that she died as a direct result of her injuries. It was YOU who raised the matter. I merely commented to the effect that YOU had no evidence either way! For you to attempt to turn that back on me… it is exasperating, illogical, unreasonable, irrational… but strangely, a tried and true UFO debunker tactic!
I could have sworn you implied she did die from her exposure.
So what if Betty Cash did not “die” from her “symptoms”… plus YOU do NOT know that to be true at all! You merely assume that her death many years in the future was NOT related… it MAY WELL have been. Radiation effects cause LONG LASTING damage that CAN be fatal MANY years after
Maybe you only suggested this was possible. However, dying from heart failure had nothing to do with being exposed to radiation. Had she been exposed to the levels you state, she would have died shortly after the event.
I stated:
”So, how about you directly addressing my rebuttals, and PLEASE resist the urge to merely repeat your assertions over again..”
Why? Because if you make an assertion, then I supply evidence in rebuttal, then you merely ignore that evidence to repeat your initial assertion – it is NOT a way to advance the debate. It is in however a way of positively stymieing debate! I recently gave you credit for trying to make your case using the evidence – I can now see that I was utterly and comprehensively incorrect in that assessment. I can see that you are not here to debate at all – in my opinion you are here to apply whatever methods you can to STOP rational debate. Shame on you Astrophotographer.
I continue to ask you to falsify the hypothesis I propose. You simply state it is implausible based on what you read on websites and various indiivduals opinions on the matter. This is not falsifying a hypothesis. Falsifying a hypothesis is demonstrating that it is not true with evidence. You have yet to do this everytime you state you find the hypothesis "implausible". If you want to cast shame on me for asking you to do actual science, then I think you are a disgrace to the scientific community.
Re Zamora.
Yes, I have looked at the possibility (see my reply to Access Denied (post #4448) and I have found the hypothesis entirely implausible for the reasons outlined in that post.
You abuse of me does not become you Astrophotographer. If you do not like my arguments, then you are free to state how and why, but attacking me personally does nothing to advance the debate.
I will let AD provide rebuttal to your claims. That being said, you find it implausible not because you can prove the craft was not there but because you don't like the possibility of the craft being there. Until you can falsify this hypothesis with actual evidence (i.e. actual proof the craft was not being tested at the time and was in the hangar) then it still remains a possible explanation. SImply proclaiming that YOU find it implausible is being unscientific. You are not even interested in what the modified helicopter looked like, which I would be most interested in seeing before I begin to state it is not likely (but not impossible).
