Radioactive air filters in cars!?

Arnie Gundersen says something really stupid again. Now he claims that there is dangerous radioactive "Hot Particles" in Tokyo car air filters and that this radiation is deadly yet it cannot be detected. This is getting really ridiculous. Seriously, is this old age, dementia or Alzheimer's with this guy?


His most recent idiocy is on Al Jazeera with an article entitled, Fukushima: It's much worse than you think.


Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well.


No. Gundersen, besides normal levels, there no "common" radiation finding in car filters in Tokyo. Fukushima is not much worse than we think. Your wild imagination and fast progressing senility is much worse than we, or even you, think. 

BRAZILIAN TROPICAL ORCHESTRA - FOOL ON THE HILL

"Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common"!? That's just total and complete bullsh*t. Jeez Louise, Gundersen, the ground around us emits natural radiation all the time! So does the sun! I'm sure that all cars emit some levels of radiation. It is a course of common sense. 


Are these levels of radiation dangerous or something to be concerned about? Not according to the University of Washington. But facts haven't stopped Gundersen yet from auditioning for the lead role in the new Chicken Little movie...


Well, I think, Arnie, you are failing miserably. If anything, the more you talk, the dumber you look. The only ones who look stupider are the mass and alternative media who blindly pass on your nonsense without taking a few minutes to research (or even think about for a moment) what you say. 


Just to show you what a crock of sh*t this idiocy Gundersen is saying is, I just did a Japanese language Google search looking for "車のエアフィルター　放射能." (In English this is "Automobile air filter + radiation"). There are zero results for this search excepting articles that refer to Gundersen as a source. Get that? Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Gundersen, you are caught red-handed! You are making up sh*t again.


Here's a screen capture of all results:

Are there any readers and Gundersen fanatics who do not believe me? Here's a shortened URL to the Google search: http://bit.ly/lUUYH0. I hope that, by now, dear reader knows how to use Google Translation.


The Al Jazeera article continues with more fluff about dangers:

According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. The hot particles on them can eventually lead to cancer.

"We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo," he said. "Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters."


The hot particles on them can eventually lead to cancer.


"These get stuck in your lungs or GI tract, and they are a constant irritant," he explained, "One cigarette doesn't get you, but over time they do. These [hot particles] can cause cancer, but you can't measure them with a Geiger counter. 


Wait a minute, Grandpa! You just put your foot in your mouth again... What's this? You are quoted as saying at least three stupid things in one breath here: 


In one part you say about "Hot particles" that:


"Scientists are finding these everywhere."


Yet, you do not name these scientists. All the while you say that these "Hot Particles" are dangerous you also claim: 


"...you can't measure them (hot particles) with a Geiger counter."


Riiiiiiight. They are radioactive and dangerous but we can't measure them witha Geiger counter!? Earth to Gundersen! Earth to Gundersen! According to Wikipedia about "Hot Particles", under the heading "Attributes" it clearly states:


Hot particles can be identified by a Geiger counter, or by autoradiography. Their age and origin can be determined by their isotopic signature.


In a previous article, Gundersen makes another unsubstantiated claim. It is an audio interview with him. Here's a snippet from an interview with another fool named Chris Martenson who needs a convenient slap right up side the head too:


“Arnie Gundersen said he received 7 used auto air filters that came from Tokyo, probably from a repair shop. Five of them had no traces of radiation, but two of them were heavily irradiated. He said the fallout will be patchy..."


OK. I'm game, Arnie, old boy. Just how did you detect these Hot Particles in air filters "from Tokyo" (by the way, do you have a receipt and proof they are from Tokyo?) when you claim that the radiation, which is normally detected with a Geiger counter, is not detectable with a Geiger counter? Are you using some sort of sodium iodide crystal device or Ion chamber? Or is it just alchemy or some sort of magic potion? 


If your results would stand up to scrutiny, then why don't you make these results public (a Youtube video would be great - you seem to like being on Youtube) and also why can't you make these claims available for confirmation by other scientists (and no, I don't mean the "scientists" that you always refer to but never name) using the Scientific Method? 


Or do we all have to go and take your word for it?... The word of a guy who makes claims about all sorts of things using "anecdotal evidence" mysterious "sources" and other claims as proof?


It gets even more silly... Gundersen goes on to compare the dangers of "Hot Particles" in car filters to to the dangers of... are you ready for it?... Cigarette smoking!!! Laughable!


"One cigarette doesn't get you, but over time they do."


So, what you are saying Gundersen is that, besides not being able to keep your  story straight, with all the pollutants in our foods, water, industrial contaminants in the air and chemicals in our over processed foods, you think that this most recent news from your "sources" (Guffaw!) is cause enough for you to scare people and cause hysteria because the level of radiation is comparable to smoking cigarettes over a long time? 

This guy looks well over 75, maybe 80. Is anyone surprised when 

an over 75-year-old guy says some pretty wild stuff?

Oh please! Someone make sure Grandpa Gundersen gets his rest and makes sure he properly takes his meds everyday and on time. This guy is losing it quickly.


Grandpa, why don't you warn people about heart disease or high blood pressure? That kills tens of thousands more times the numbers of people annually than cigarette smoking does. From the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention here's the numbers for deaths of the leading causes of deaths (2007):

• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706

From the same site, in 1990, deaths attributed to smoking were, get this... 5,619! That's the most recent information I could find. Sales of cigarettes and tobacco products keep declining every year so I imagine that they've found it a waste of money to keep track of this anymore.


But Gundersen wants to compare the big bad "Hot Particles" to the evils of smoking when you have over a 200,000% higher chance of dying from heart disease or cancers (food preservatives, chemicals, too much salt, and car accidents). I also showed the relative dangers of this in a previous post entitled: For Every One Death Due to Nuclear Power, 4,000 Die Due to Coal in which the title of the post speaks for itself.


Gee, Arnie, why don't you do something more useful with your 15 minutes of fame and urge people to slow down and drive more safely? That would save a hell of a lot more lives than this nonsense you keep saying... 


Oh, but then again, I forgot. You work in the nuclear industry advising people on how to decommission nuke plants and not as an adviser to automobile safety organizations. But, nah! You don't have any conflicts of interest.


You are a REAL scientist!


Gundersen is a joke. I've already blasted Arnie for saying stupid stuff before. In Metallic Tastes in Mouths Prove Nuclear Disaster in Japan! Or Does it? I wrote:

Once again, Arnie Gundersen and a bunch of illogical panic stricken fools say something stupid about Fukushima and radiation. 

They are now saying that there is "anecdotal evidence" of people having a metallic taste in their mouths and, from this, they draw the wild conclusion that this means there is an uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction going on at Fukushima. This nonsense has no basis in science, reality, nor does it have any evidence backing it up. It is fantasy.. 


"Anecdotal eveidence!" Isn't that hilarious? I already showed you how he has motivation for saying this and a possible conflict of interest (making him no more credible than, say, George Bush)... And speaking of "air" and "filters" I ripped him a new air-hole when he claimed that "the winds have now shifted and are blowing from Fukushima to Tokyo." 


This most recent rubbish is just plain embarrassing. I guess the mass media is now latching onto Gundersen because they realize (as I demonstrated) that their last "expert" Michio Kaku was definitely a few CDs short of a boxed set. But, they'll soon see that Gundersen isn't any better.


I suspect, one day soon, people are going to realize that, when it comes to Gundersen, we are talking about a senior citizen here who seems to be losing his grip on reality. Anyone who has a father or mother over 75 or so, may have had  this experience. 

But I guess I shouldn't be too hard on the old guy. I mean, think about it, they say that radiation causes all sorts of damage to the body and to the human brain. There's no argument there. Gundersen also claims that he worked in the nuclear industry for over 38 years (something that has been proven as a gross exaggeration along with his claims of many of his other "qualifications" here)... If anything, I suppose that means that the nonsense he says is the best proof so far that radiation is damaging to humans. 


OK. Let's say that he did work at nuke plants for 38 years... That and Gundersen repeatedly spewing out unconfirmed, hysterical nonsense is a great argument that radiation does cause brain damage.

Drug Testing Results and Why Positive Results are Only 50% Dependable

Logic is based in math. Understanding numbers and how to interpret them helps us to sift through the rubbish. This rubbish comes from the mass media, politicians and from so many sources today. 

Johnny Thunders - Chinese Rock

I have to thank that hysterical old fool named Arnie Gundersen for making idiotic statements that have inspired this series of posts... like the one he made that I referred to in an earlier post: Metallic Tastes in Mouths Proves Nuclear Disaster in Japan! Or Does it?


There is substantial evidence of ongoing nuclear chain reactions. Another piece of evidence - as pointed out by nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen - is that there are widespread anecdotal reports of people in Japan and the West Coast of the United States reporting a metallic taste in their mouths:




When I first blasted Gundersen for saying something stupid, many people came out of the woodwork to defend him. They've all disappeared now. There's no defending such asinine statements anymore. I think Gundersen might need to see a doctor. This nonsense ranting sounds like old age or Alzheimer's.


This post is based upon Marilyn Vos Savant's best selling book, The Power of Logical Thinking - Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning … and Hard Facts About Its Absence in Our Lives. That sub-title is what's so important today. The absence of reasoning in our lives causes so much confusion, consternation and panic. Especially in these days of earthquakes, political uprisings, tsunami's, economic turmoil and nuclear accidents.


I can't possibly deal with all those issues in one small blog post. so I am focusing on the mathematical probability of drug testing to show you how people lie with numbers.


Perhaps I should call this post's sub-title: Why drug testing isn't all what it is cracked up to be....


Yesterday's blog was about critical thinking and a comparison using drug testing. In that post entitled


Radiation, Drug Testing, Critical Thinking, Analytical Reading and Probability I asked: 




"A particularly and important question today is that of testing for drugs. Suppose it is assumed that about 5 percent of the general population uses drugs. You employ a test that is 95 percent accurate, which we'll say means that if the individual is a user, the test will be positive 95% of the time, and if the individual is a nonuser, the test will be negative 95% of the time. A person is selected at random and given the test. It's positive. What does the result suggest? Would you conclude that the individual is highly likely to be a drug user?"

I think that most people would say that the odds of this randomly selected person, who tested positive for drugs, are 95% correct. This is a very common misunderstanding. The tests show that this person has a 95% chance of being a drug user. But the result of a one-time random test is way off from the actual odds of this person being a drug abuser. The chances that this person is a drug abuser are nowhere near 95%. Understanding this should make people who consider the results of drug testing great pause.

The correct answer to this test, once again, lies in logic and math. 

I hope some reader will be able to solve this puzzle.


I also gave a hint away at the bottom of that article saying that I hoped it would be a 50/50 chance that dear reader would come back tomorrow for the correct answer. Well, one smart reader, James, got the answer correct the first time. He wrote:


"Fifty-fifty indeed!

Perform this test on one hundred people. 95 of them will be non-drug users, but 5% of them will get false positives on the test = 4.75 people. 

Five people will be drug users and will get true positives 95% of the time = 4.75 people. 

So out of the 9-10 people out of 100 that this test will flag as positive for drugs, only half of them will actually be drug users.

That right?"


James is absolutely right. James! Move to the front of the class with honors! Even though the drug test is considered "correct" 95% of the time, it is still only correct, in this example, 50% of the time.


Here's the results. Once again, from The Power of Logical Thinking - Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning … and Hard Facts About Its Absence in Our Lives by Marilyn Vos Savant::


Here's how the "fifty-fifty" answer is determined. Suppose the general population consists of 10,000 people. Of those people, we assume for this problem that 95% of them (9,500) are non and that 5% of them (500) are users.


Of the 9,500 non users, 95% of them (9,025) will test negative. That means 5% of them (475) will test positive. Of the 500 users, 95% of them (475) will test positive. That means that 5% of them (25) will test negative. These are the totals:

There are 475 "false positives" and 475 "true positives", a total of 950 positives, so when we find an individual in that positive group, there's only a 50/50 chance that s/he's a user.

But let's suppose instead that a randomly chosen person tests negative. From the above calculation, we can see that there are 25 "false negatives" and 9,025 "true negatives" - a total of 9,050 negatives - so for an individual in that negative group, there's an overwhelming chance that s/he is not a user. 

Understanding the above can help anyone of us to be able to better filter information that we are receiving daily from the mass media. It is especially helpful when we are fed numbers that have no meaning such as "Radiation levels in Tokyo are up 400%!" That was a headline that we all read a few months back. 400% up from what? After some research some of us discovered that, even though radiation in Tokyo went up 400% it was still at half or even 1/4 the rate of Rome, Italy.


Nevertheless, the news caused fear and panic.


A better understanding of mathematics and its use towards critical thinking and analytical reading skills will do much for many people to calm their fears and to help them understand exactly what is going on.


It all reminds me of my favorite saying of Mark Twain:


"I'm an old man now and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened."

Radiation, Drug Testing, Critical Thinking, Analytical Reading and Probability

I've written extensively on the ridiculous nonsense that passes for news and how too many people in this day and age seem unable to filter through the crap and make a logical assessment of what they should and should not believe.

SHIRLEY TEMPLE - POLLY WOLLY DOODLE

A traditional American song about nonsense.

Yesterday's article was a good example of junk that was being passed for "news". In "Metallic Tastes in Mouths Proves Nuclear Disaster in Japan! Or Does it?" I wrote:


Once again, Arnie Gundersen and a bunch of illogical panic stricken fools say something stupid about Fukushima and radiation. 

They are now saying that there is "anecdotal evidence" of people having a metallic taste in their mouths and, from this, they draw the wild conclusion that this means there is an uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction going on at Fukushima. This nonsense has no basis in science, reality, nor does it have any evidence backing it up. It is fantasy. I has no real meaning to anyone who actually has more than two brain cells functioning.


If you do a random search today on Google, you can find some people who have now "drank the poison" and, in their uncontrolled paranoia have begun to believe that they, too, have a metallic taste in their mouths.


This "anecdotal evidence" is pure idiocy. Anecdotal comes from the word, Anecdote. "Anecdote" in the Merriam Webster dictionary is defined as:

: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident.

"Anecdotal" is defined as:

: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence>

: of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story 

"Suggesting a story"? Indeed.


Once again, this question comes down to a problem of critical reading and analytical thinking abilities. In the above case, concerning that clown Arnie Gundersen, I find it astounding that anyone, for even a split second, would consider this "metallic taste" and "anecdotal evidence" nonsense as proof of a problem (other than hypochondria). I also can't believe that this guy opens his mouth up and says this stupid stuff and then doesn't want to crawl back into a hole in embarrassment.


These problems repeatedly come down to a basic understanding of logic which lies in an even more basic understanding of math and probabilities. I'm not sure what the percentage probability of "Anecdotal" is, but I would put it at about 0%.


Anyone care to debate that point?


Here's a good question for dear reader to consider. It is from The Power of Logical Thinking - Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning … and Hard Facts About Its Absence in Our Lives by Marilyn Vos Savant:


"A particularly and important question today is that of testing for drugs. Suppose it is assumed that about 5 percent of the general population uses drugs. You employ a test that is 95 percent accurate, which we'll say means that if the individual is a user, the test will be positive 95% of the time, and if the individual is a nonuser, the test will be negative 95% of the time. A person is selected at random and given the test. It's positive. What does the result suggest? Would you conclude that the individual is highly likely to be a drug user?"


I think that most people would say that the odds of this randomly selected person, who tested positive for drugs, are 95% correct. This is a very common misunderstanding. The tests show that this person has a 95% chance of being a drug user. But the result of a one-time random test is way off from the actual odds of this person being a drug abuser. The chances that this person is a drug abuser are nowhere near 95%. Understanding this should make people who consider the results of drug testing great pause.


The correct answer to this test, once again, lies in logic and math. 


I hope some reader will be able to solve this puzzle. The correct answer is actually quite simple and can be done with a pencil and piece of paper or with common sense. Of course, like the metallic taste in mouths, the common sense method is much better and more fun.

In a weaselly attempt to get dear reader to come back to this blog I will post the actual percentage of this person being a drug abuser with a simple explanation tomorrow. 


I wonder what my odds are of etting you to come back tomorrow? 50/50?

Metallic Tastes in Mouths Proves Nuclear Disaster in Japan! Or Does it?

Once again, Arnie Gundersen and a bunch of illogical panic stricken fools say something stupid about Fukushima and radiation. 

Green Day - Panic Song

They are now saying that there is "anecdotal evidence" of people having a metallic taste in their mouths and, from this, they draw the wild conclusion that this means there is an uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction going on at Fukushima. This nonsense has no basis in science, reality, nor does it have any evidence backing it up. It is fantasy. I has no real meaning to anyone who actually has more than two brain cells functioning.


These alarmists like Gundersen are getting desperate for something bad to happen. It doesn't happen, so they are going to create a buzz about something and create a panic. Gundersen is in the wrong job. He probably would have been better at buzz or guerilla marketing. Isn't there a law against instigating panic? Isn't there a law against yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater where there isn't one?


Now, Gundersen is claiming that this "anecdotal evidence" proves nuclear contamination in Japan because some people report a metallic taste in their mouths. Just, who is reporting this? 


From Washington's Blog, this sensationalist schlock:


The Russian scientists and firefighters who fought the Chernobyl fire reported a "metallic taste" in their mouth. That taste was from radioactive iodine. (It is well known that all iodine has a metallic taste.)


"It is well known that all iodine has a metallic taste"? Really? Can anyone confirm this? I've drank it before for a medical checkup that required using diagnostic scanners and it tasted like liquid talcum powder to me. And, what does this have to do with Japan? Nothing really, excepting that Arnie Gundersen says "there's widespread anecdotal eveidence of people reporting metallic tastes in their mouths." 


Oh really? Here's what I found out after a search on Google about "metallic taste in mouth": http://bit.ly/kpdl8L...


Let's see... Take your pick. Click on any one of them about metallic tastes in ones mouth:

1) Does anyone get a metallic taste in their mouth from anxiety? ...

2) Apparently I taste metallic when I kiss. I've heard that pregnant women and get a metallic taste in their mouth.

3) Metallic taste in mouth now being reported in Japan and US west coast — Telltale sign of radiation exposure (Oh no. This one doesn't count. It's the same BS story from Gundersen. There are no stories about people experiencing metallic tastes in their motuhs excepting ones linked and related to this Gundersen story claiming ancedotal evidence. That's a royal FAIL Gundersen! Can't have facts, so let's capitalize on people's fear and paranoia and get them to imagine that this metallic taste is from Fukushima! Great idea!

Somebody please punch this guy or at least put a bucket on his head.

Here's more search results:

4) Has anyone ever had a metallic taste in their mouth as a very early pregnancy symptom?

5) Metallic Taste in Mouth - Information from a dentist about how medicines cause metallic taste. 

6) Here's a Japanese Happoshu (kind of like beer) that actually brags that its flavor has a metallic taste: Kirin Tanrei Happoshu Review | MoIppai A light, soft, slightly metallic tasting happoshu from Kirin. Like most happoshus it has that odd metallic taste to it, but it's not too overpowering in

Happoshu outsells beer in Japan by a margin of over 2 to 1. 

You can bet that there's lots of us with metallic tastes in our 

mouths from drinking this swill.

6) And finally, this one: She has a bad mouth taste? Dysgeusia? - MSN Health - Oral Care

The MSN article is interesting. It says:

In general, when a person’s ability to taste is altered, there is a problem with their taste perception and/or sense of smell (olfactory system). Most often it is a temporary nuisance, but sometimes it can be a long-lasting concern. To figure out what is going on with your wife, let’s go over some "tasty" facts.

Your mouth contains around 10,000 taste buds, most of which are located on and around the tiny bumps on your tongue. However, there are others under the tongue, inside the cheeks, on the roof of the mouth, on the lips and even in the back of the throat. Every taste bud detects five primary tastes:

• Sour
• Sweet
• Bitter
• Salty
• Umami--salts of certain acids (for example, monosodium glutamate or MSG)

All tastes come from a combination of these basic taste sensations.

Your wife is experiencing an altered sense of taste (dysgeusia). This can be disguised as metallic, foul tasting or some other sensation. Since you didn’t provide too much information about her, we will need to do some detective work.


Even with a long history of people having a metallic taste sensation in their mouths - translation: this is nothing new or unusual, the hyperventilating sensationalist tabloid crap continues:


There is substantial evidence of ongoing nuclear chain reactions. Another piece of evidence - as pointed out by nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen - is that there are widespread anecdotal reports of people in Japan and the West Coast of the United States reporting a metallic taste in their mouths:


How having a metallic taste in one's mouth proves ongoing nuclear chain reactions is left up to the reader's (or, in this case, the writer's) wild imagination. Haven't any of these people drank canned beer?


Also, they fail to mention that radioactive iodine has a half-life of 8 days  and it still reportedly has a metallic taste in some people's mouths (as opposed to canned beer that has a metallic taste in everyone's mouth!) 


But that is not enough to get everyone in a panic and get their dander up. The world is coming to an end for sure....


Excepting one teeny weeny little details at the very end of the article. It says:

Note 2: There are, of course, other sources of "metallic tastes". 


Yes. Indeed. There are other sources of metallic tastes. But talking about pregnant women or cheap assed beer doesn't make for fun or sensationalist crap, does it?