Rouser's thought processes

[Rolfe]

It's the x-ray one the really baffles me. It's not even central to the original point, but still he defends his clearly erroneous assumption as if it's an item of true belief.

X-rays are easy to detect. However, objects which have been through an airport security scanner do not then proceed to emit x-rays, and thus cannot be sorted from identical objects which haven't been scanned by using a Geiger counter. But try explaining that to Rouser!

This one is so brain-dead I wonder whether he's really as stupid as he seems to be, or whether he's simply repeating obvious fallacies for the fun of watching our reactions.

What do you guys think?

Rolfe.

 

[epepke]

I can't vote. There's no option for "nugatory."

 

[Rolfe]

I can't vote. There's no option for "nugatory."

Well, if I knew what you meant by that, and if I knew how to add another option, I'd fix it. But I don't, so I can't. Sorry.

Rolfe.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You still talking about x-ray contamination of skin and clothing? I thought you guys finished with that. It happens although not with the short exposures of most kinds of clinical x-ray procedures.

Take a look at:

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/radiation/incidents.htm


Some years ago I was visiting Brookhaven National Laboratories out in Patchogue, NY and as I was leaving I was required to pass through a whole body counter to see if I picked up any radiation. It turns out I got some radiation on the bottom of my shoes from merely walking over a grid of a containment tank for spent fuel rods or some such thing. I don't recall. Anyway I had to give up my shoes to a technician who then washed off the radiation with borax and water and then I got my shoes back.

I thought we have all these hot shot physicists on this forum. They can explain this better than I can.

I suggest Rouser, recalling such incidents, was referring to this.

 

[bug_girl]

yeah, but radiation does not equal xrays, steve. it's just that xrays are a certain subset of radiation.

we had an ongoing problem with radioactive tracers used in ugrad labs--the kids don't take proper precautions, and then the whole damn counter is hot. it's not enough radioactivity to hurt anyone, but gets the feds much excited.
sigh.

 

[Zombified]

There's a difference between radiation and the stuff that emits radiation. If you get it on your shoes (or something like that) its a radioactive material, not radiation. X-rays are radiation, unstable isotopes are radioactive materials.

I posted an overly long diatribe here towards the bottom, but I think most everybody had already given up on that thread.

 

[SteveGrenard]

"The most likely scenario for a serious overexposure to radiation involves exposure to the primary beam of an x-ray diffractometer, to a high activity sealed source or as the result of an extended exposure to contamination on skin or clothing."

(from the above site). Yes, radioactive material. If your skin or clothing receives enough x-rays it becomes such a material.

I granted above that under ordinary clinical situations this is not the case.

 

[Doubt]

Rouser is a big believer in conspiracy theories. That which sounds right to him is assumed to be true. Actual proof is not required. He is quite capable of data mining in an attempt to support his beliefs even if the source he cites does not back his position.

When pinned into a corner, he will attempt to insult by ranting about “government education” in spite of his own ignorance.

I got into it with him in a thread about the Branch Dividians at Waco.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8191&highlight=waco

 

[BTox]

I was looking for the "Rouser is simply a nitwit" option. Wasn't there, so I settled for #1.

 

[Zep]

Rouser has thought processes?

With what, pray tell?

 

[Yahweh]

Rouser knows that all these things are false, and he just enjoys watching us try more and more juvenile explanations while trying to convince him.

That one gets my vote.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Rouser has thought processes?

With what, pray tell?

I have no idea. He fiercely wants to believe pseudoscience.

I have some of my own paranoid theories on him. Mostly that he is a young pup brought up on pseudoscience. I think he plans on being a chiropractor or looks forward to going to a homeopath college.

Thus he needs customers. He's brushing up on his arguments to give his customers in case they come across people like us.

Heh

 

[Prester John]

"The most likely scenario for a serious overexposure to radiation involves exposure to the primary beam of an x-ray diffractometer, to a high activity sealed source or as the result of an extended exposure to contamination on skin or clothing."

(from the above site). Yes, radioactive material. If your skin or clothing receives enough x-rays it becomes such a material.

I granted above that under ordinary clinical situations this is not the case.

Not quite Steve, it is talking about overexposure, it does not state that you will become radioactive thro' exposure to x-rays. Merely that exposure to x-rays can be dangerous and lead to "serious overexposure" (esp if you're mucking around with a diffractometer.)

Regardless the conversation was specifically about airport x-ray machines. Perhpas you could find out roughly how long you would have to leave a bottle of water in one to get any detectable changes!

 

[The Don]

You still talking about x-ray contamination of skin and clothing? I thought you guys finished with that. It happens although not with the short exposures of most kinds of clinical x-ray procedures.

Take a look at:

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/radiation/incidents.htm


Some years ago I was visiting Brookhaven National Laboratories out in Patchogue, NY and as I was leaving I was required to pass through a whole body counter to see if I picked up any radiation. It turns out I got some radiation on the bottom of my shoes from merely walking over a grid of a containment tank for spent fuel rods or some such thing. I don't recall. Anyway I had to give up my shoes to a technician who then washed off the radiation with borax and water and then I got my shoes back.

I thought we have all these hot shot physicists on this forum. They can explain this better than I can.

I suggest Rouser, recalling such incidents, was referring to this.

Not a hot shot physicist, but here goes......

There were, when I was at high school, three types of radiation:

- Alpha "rays" which are helium nucelii and are non-penetrative
- Beta "rays" which are relatively high energy electrons
- Gamma "rays" which is high energy electromagnetic radiation

All of these are caused by the decay of unstable ("radioactive") isotopes of elements into more stable isotopes.

As examples

Americium (241) decays to Neptunium (237) and in the process emits an alpha particle

Iodine (131) decays to Xenon (131) and in the process emits a beta particle

In either case there may also be an energy imbalance which causes the emmission of a gamma "ray"

In order for radiation to occur, there must be a material which is decaying (which is what was found on the bottom of the shoe).

If something is bombarded with gamma or x-rays (both high energy electromagnetic radiation) there is no lasting residual radiation within the material UNLESS the introduction of energy into the material has triggered, or increased the rate at which decay of that material takes place.

Bombarding water with x-rays does not leave x-rays in solution or suspension within the water that can come out an harm you at a later time. What x-rays (or indeed ultraviolet radiation) can do is to kill some of the the bacteria living in teh water.

 

[Rolfe]

Regardless, the conversation was specifically about airport x-ray machines. Perhaps you could find out roughly how long you would have to leave a bottle of water in one to get any detectable changes!

What PJ said.

Btox, I thought the Planet X option covered the "nitwit" angle - can't have a poll without a Planet X option, after all!

I still haven't voted myself, I can't make it out at all.

Rolfe.

 

[wayrad]

Rolfe, don't you have "wild virulent viruses" and "vaccine viruses" reversed in Option 1?

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, don't you have "wild virulent viruses" and "vaccine viruses" reversed in Option 1?

Whoops!

I had to read that three times before I realised. Serves me right for posting polls when I'm messing up the whole process (that was the third time of typing it!).

Anybody know of any way I can change this to spare my blushes?

Rolfe.

 

[wayrad]

Anybody know of any way I can change this to spare my blushes?

I think you have to ask a moderator. I always find some howler in my posts right after hitting the "submit" button, myself.

 

[Rolfe]

I think you have to ask a moderator. I always find some howler in my posts right after hitting the "submit" button, myself.

I've asked Pyrrho to change "more" to "less". Since I don't see a way to send a PM to "duty moderator", I thought he was around and picked on him.

In fact it seems you can't edit the text of the questions at all, even during the first hour, so seeing it immediately wouldn't have helped. (I nearly always end up correcting typos in the first few minutes - pathological pedantry rules.)

Rolfe.

 

[epepke]

Well, if I knew what you meant by that, and if I knew how to add another option, I'd fix it.

It's a word in a language we call Eng-lish. It means

1. Trifling; vain; futile; insignificant.

2. Of no force; inoperative; ineffectual.

All of which seem to describe those thought processes to me.