วีดีโอ

Oh but it did. The name Palestine was around 2,000 years ago, but it wasn't used exactly the way it is today. Here's a breakdown: The term originated around the 5th century BCE from the Greeks, referring to a region including Judea (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine). Romans adopted it after defeating a Jewish revolt in 135 CE. It wasn't a name for a specific nation, but more of a geographical term. People living there often referred to the area as Southern Syria instead. So, while Palestine existed as a name 2000 years ago, it had a different meaning than the one it holds for many today.

@@greatgambino you're confusing Palestine with Philistine which was a Greek colony around 1000BC roughly in the region of present day Gaza..

I took that information from AI which is suppose to be all knowing..........@@roshlew6994

@@greatgambino AI is obviously wrong here.. maybe it's been fed wrong information

I got engrossed in it as I am doing a documentary on the essenes and Josephus wrote extensively about them and for a time, lived as one of them. In reading these parts of The Wars of The Jews, I was surprised at all the attempts the Romans made to placate the jews They did not require the same homage and worship to their gods for the jews, as the Romans did in all their other provinces. Also, Herod who was a tyrant by many estimations, also did his best to be assimilated as one with the jews and the Temple. He did massive construction projects including the great Temple, which was considered at that time to be one of the most grand constructions in all the world at that time. He also built the Caesarea port which could have become one of the worlds most busiest ports in the Roman empire for its ideal location. The engineering to construct the harbor was no small feat. And the prosperity of Caesarea and Judea in general, jumped up enormously. Yet still the jews resented Herod, who even practiced Judaism in the hopes of being full accepted at the Temple, which he never was. Also, Herod had a deep respect for the Essenes who were known for their honesty and peacefulness. According to Josephus he held them in high regard and exempted them from taking any oaths since he knew their word was good. So.......maybe Herod was not quite as evil as portrayed.

Wow! I didnt know that was where Monty Python dug up that information. Caius, who was the Roman Caesar at the prior time, thought he was a God and demanded the statues of himself be placed in the Temple at Jerusalem in violation of the prior agreements Rome had established with Judea. These agreements were an exception to all the other Roman provinces which had no such privileges. When Caius did this, it started an extreme reaction to it in jerusalem. When the current procurator told the jews of what he had been ordered to do the jews reacted by, in mass, preparing to die first before they would let that happen. The procurator was so moved that he told them he would relent and send a message back to Rome that he could not do such a thing, even if it meant that he would die in the fury of Caius. When Caius go the message he was furious and send a message back to the procurator ordering him back to Rome, possibly facing execution. As fate would have it, Caius died before the message reached the procurator and he did not face trial in Rome. Still the jews were angry at the affront.

You guys are good! I sent this to friends and relatives and nobody figured it out. I used the cell phone selfie camera on a fixture connected to the bike and it gave a reverse image video as if I rode on the other side of the rode. The location is Latrobe Road connecting Highway 50 to Highway 16 in Northern California in the eastern Sacramento Valley.

Yeah I was wondering how you were driving on the left! Big giveaway was the yellow lines and I paused at a sign that said MPH. Oddly australian looking. Maybe even South African looking. @@greatgambino

Good one! video correction and an ad hominem attack.

I installed as instructed by the Owens Corning Rep. Who are you?

@@greatgambino I've been installing full time since 1971 and I just pulled 45' of that stuff 2 months ago. Junk. Without a side baffle the rain water will wick up the roof slope under high wind conditions .

@@larrycrookshanks1646 The product was installed under the direct advice of an Owens Corning representative. The shingles I used were a new line of shingles (special order direct from factory) that Owens Corning offered and were lifetime. Under the advice of both the representative and the roofing materials outlet, I installed the roof venting EXACTLY as advised. When I finished, my roof was inspected by my county's building permit inspectors and passed. It was also viewed by the Owens Corning representative and I gave them permission you use pictures of my roof as a marketing instrument for the future sales of their new product. Outer baffle? Nothing was mentioned by Owens Corning when I asked for compensation for the damage that happened. And I submitted pictures of damages, installation etc. So I don't know what you are talking about. And the most amazing thing is, I went back to the material supplier (this was about 8 years after installation) and found this roof vent system still for sale. I talked to the sales person and were totally ignorant of the problems such venting causes. And neither the Owens Corning complaint department, nor the retail sales outlet ever mentioned this side baffle you are talking about. There are lots of roofs installed with this system that do not have what you are talking about.

Yes

@@greatgambino congrats

Hi ! A friend with mrsa is trying the clay. They would like too know how long too use it?

@@teripowell852 apply for at least 20 minutes a day, up to 60 minutes max. Do twice a day. apply about 1/4 inch layer. monitor skin condition for excessive dryness or irritation after a few days use and adjust time accordingly. My skin had no problem with 30 minutes. Apply apple cider vinegar to infected area a few times a day, in between clay treatment. Dilute vinegar to 1/3 strength at first and see how skin tolerates it. Good luck!

Also its important to apply anywhere cellulitis is present (red, swollen skin caused by infection in the subdermal layer) and not just where open boils exist. It took mine case 4-5 days to see visual healing of smaller boils and 2 weeks to see everything healing up except for the original injury that it started it all. In month everything gone. I was checked by my regular physician after and found no indication of existing infection.

Part 2 comments: General comments: By placing the meter in one place on the beach, your are not measuring the background of the beach; you are measuring the background of a small area under the detector. In the case of rocky (or pebble) beaches* one small rock (with uranium or thorium content - pretty common in California) under the place you put the detector can give you a high reading. How do you mitigate this? Multiple readings, in multiple places on the beach, to get an average background. Or, raise the detector off the beach, giving it a better "view" or a wider area. You do loose some beta signal due to shielding, but the strength of the field above an extended source - in this case, a plane - is constant (out to a distance where the extended source starts to look lie not-a-plane to the detector). (*even sand beaches do not have uniform distribution of radioactive background. Wave action can concentrate the heavier uranium and thorium bearing particles in ripples in the beach, like panning for gold. This effect can be see at Surfers beach, just south of San Francisco...) So, that's background. What about detection on the kelp itself? When you place the detector ON the kelp, ON the beach, you are counting the kelp AND anything beneath it. See the discussion above. (Note: A dishonest "investigator" could use this to present false readings by simply placing the kelp above a spot with a hot rock and taking readings and then "OMG we're all going to die of Fukushima radiation!" I an NOT accusing you of this, just giving an example of how measurements can be manipulated.) So, how to count the kelp? Move it to a place with known and if possible, lower background. For example, take a small table to the beach with you, something that gives you say, 3 feet clearance off the beach. Take a reading of background on the table. Place the kelp on the table (on plastic, so that you don't risk contaminating your counting surface and changing the background) and take your reading there. You say in the video that you took samples, but not if you ever counted those samples away from the beach in an area with known (and low) background. Also, if you did, did you clean the sand (potentially uranium and thorium bearing ores) off the kelp before counting? Lets move onto actually using the meter! From the manual: "Operating in Count Mode A timed count is useful for determining the average counts per minute over a longer period of time. The number of counts detected varies from minute to minute due to the random nature of radioactivity. When a count is taken over a longer period, the average count per minute is more accurate. Taking an average allows you to detect low-level contamination or differences in background radiation due to altitude or soil mineral content. For example, if one 10-minute average is 1 count per minute higher than another 10-minute average, the increase is likely due to normal variation. But over 12 hours, a 1 count per minute increase over the 12 hour background average may be statistically significant." For emphasis, let me re-quote this section: "The number of counts detected varies from minute to minute due to the random nature of radioactivity." Between 100 and 200 CPS, your meter is averaging for a total of SIX SECONDS. (Why do you thing it gives you counts in CPM that change so frequently, in less than minute intervals? At 120 CPM it has only "seen" 12 events in a a six second interval.) The standard deviation of the count is approximately equal to the square root of the number of counts. So for a SIX SECOND counting interval at 120 CPM, the square root of the number displayed is ~3.5 counts - giving you a standard deviation of 3.5/12 = ~29% . At that low count rate, the reading on the meter is almost meaningless. (+-3 S.d. = 1.5 - 22.5 CPS or 15 to 225 CPM) (OK, real world - ~70% of all readings will fall withing 1 s.d. of the mean, so not quite meaningless: most of your reading should be between 85 and 155 CPM...) (OTOH, the "peak reading " is a worthless measure, as a "minimum reading" would also be. How to fix this? Take all measurement using the "Count Mode" (what most people would cause integrating) Setting your count time so that you get greater than 10,000 total counts (sqr(10,000) = 100, s.d. =~ 1%) Low count rates is the reason they included the "Count Mode" in the instrument! (Use something less than 10,000 if you are pressed for time. 1,00 counts still gives you a s.d. of ~3% - still pretty good statistics!) So, take a short reading on your sample or background, Say it gives you ~100 CPM count your sample for 10,000/100 = 100 minutes divide total counts by 100 to get CMP. (See comment above - 100 minutes too long to fit into your busy schedule? 10 minutes will still give you decent statistics. But Standardize on your samples as much as possible!) (From the Ranger Manual: "Establishing the Background Count Normal background radiation levels vary at different locations, different times, even in different areas of the same room. To accurately interpret the readings you get, it is good to establish the normal background radiation count rate for each area you plan to monitor. You can do this by taking a timed count. See Chapter 3: How To Take A Timed Count. A 10-minute average is moderately accurate. You can repeat it several times and compare the results to establish accuracy. To establish a more accurate average, take a 1 hour timed count. If you need to determine whether there is prior contamination, take averages in several locations, and compare the averages. Environmental Area Monitoring You can keep the Ranger in dose/rate mode whenever you want to monitor the ambient radiation, and look at it from time to time to check for elevated readings. If you suspect an increase in ambient radiation, use the count mode and take a 5 or 10 minute count, and compare the average to your average background count. If you suspect an increase that is too small to detect with a short timed reading, you can take a longer count (for example 6, 12, or 24 hours).") (Did you ever RTFM? seintl.com/support/manuals/Ranger_Operation_Manual_English.pdf) 25:00 Near dead sea lion? In addition to uranium and thorium potentially in the sand, K-40 from corpse could throw off the measurements. Plus, it may be smelly. 25:30 Again, "peaking" readings are meaningless. 25:47 Given the general comments above, your conclusions are highly suspect. Your statistics are wrong, you failed to count kelp in low or known background areas, and your background measurements not fully representative of the area in which they were taken. 26:58 Contact Kai Vetter at UC Berkley and ask him what peaks he saw during the time kelpwatch was active, and specifically what peaks between 660 and 740 KeV were seen and what isotopes they represent. Bisimuth 214, a natural uranium decay chain daughter, has several gamma emission in that range. 27:22 At this point, given that the level of Cs 137 in the ocean is reaching limits of detection (above previous background), it is unlikely that a scintillation detector would be able to detect ANY Cs134, given that it has gone through several half lives. AMS >might< be able to detect Cs 134, but at that level it is insignificant. 27:56 EPA drinking water limits = 7.4 bq/l at 3 bq/m^3 levels currently being measured in ocean water, Cs 137 is a factor of 25,000 less than the EPA limits. And given that at the current leakage rate it would take 5,000 years to put as much into the ocean as was initially discharged in March 2011... 28:09 What nuclear science actually says is that there is no level of radiation exposure that does not increase risk. This is a result of the linear-no-threshold model (unproven). But another result of applying that model is that extremely low doses of radiation impose extremely small increases in risk. And at the current concentrations measured in seawater, the Cs 137 gives only an almost infinitely small, negligible increase in the risk. Even with bioaccumulation. 28:30 The Nordic countries have been dealing with Cs contamination for decades, even prior to Chernobyl (Russian bomb testing). Lichens, a main source of food for reindeer, bioaccumulate Cs readily and contaminate reindeer meat. I believe the levels they have set are 300bq/kg, 3 times what Japan reduced theirs to after the Fukushima accident (100bq/kg). However, it should also be noted that he Cs levels are far higher in concentration in the soil that the concentrations found in seawater (from Fukushima and atmospheric testing). 28:36 Actually, bioaccumulation HAS been studied extensively, due to atmospheric testing and Chernobyl bot of which released massive amounts of Cs into the environment... 29:02 Again, "tons" is not a measure of radioactivity, and at the current rate it would take 5,000 years to put as much into the ocean as was initially discharged in March 2011. 29:15 What evidence do you have that the readings on the rock are NOT part of the rock? Did you measure other rocks nearby? Did you "decontaminate" the rock and take more reading? Do you have any basis at all for that comment? (Uranium and thorium ores are relatively common in rocks in California.) 29:42 It is unlikely to continue. 29:53. As noted above, we HAVE seen wide-scale contamination of the environment with Cs 137. What we haven't seen is any apocalyptic-al (or other)effects that can be attributed to such contamination.

@@alanremick7422 Good example of how NOT to use a geiger counter.

Sorry for the delay in reply. I will address your concerns, one by one. First, the El Nino effect has been occurring since time began on the West Coast but no substantial die off of kelp occurred. True the kelp likes colder water but grows down the California Pacific Coast where water temps are traditionally higher than the Northern CA coast. In fact when the die off became readily apparent there was still healthy kelp forests in more southern areas, such as Monterey Bay, where water temps were higher than N CA. So the warming cause does not fit the die off explanation. "Forests take a long time to grow,". Not really true. Kelp is the fasting growing organism known, in optimum sun conditions, 2 feet a day. In fact the shoreline bull kelp pictured in this video is all but wiped out in winter storms (which result in heavy seashore accumulation of dead kelp). It grows back every year when things are normal to become a choking forest surrounding shorelines. "A doubling in the very low background of Cs 134 in the environment isn't necessarily significant" not scientifically proven. The case of the Chernobyl caused radioactive will boar in Germany case in point. In areas which have long since been determined safe in the German Forest after the Chernobyl incident, there are highly radioactive boar that have bioaccumulated CS137 from "insignificant low level radiation." Our science does not understand how bioaccumulation will work in ocean species. "Sea Star wasting disease exacerbated by "the blob". What ocean scientist blames the decline of sea stars on Fukushima? Give one example." That is exactly the point of this video. There is not published science on what effect raised CS 137 can cause and no report on how our sea life is bioaccumulating CS137. Contact a marine lab and ask for the latest studies and see what you get. "Also, how were the sea stars off Japan or Alaska effected? Any radiation damage would be much more prevalent there, where the concentrations of radioactive material were certainly for higher for a while.." I don't know anything about the oceans around Japan and what is being studied there so I can not comment. The subspecies of kelp I presume, are quite different than our bull kelp on the Pacific Coast. "Possibly, but high levels of radiation were never detected in sea water, OR in kelp off the west coast." High levels no, but detectable rise in CS137 and Fukushima marker, CS134, yes. And as already mentioned in the case of wild boars in Germany (many miles from Chernobyl) , when bioaccumulation occurs, low, low safe, nearly detectable radiation can be concentrated into dangerous amounts. "Like any species, repopulation from a natural disaster (the "blob" and disease) takes time." I don't know the details on the reproductive characteristics of starfish, but I do know in nature when a food supply of a predator increases, so does the predator population. "Also, while we are at it, nothing "bioaccumulates radiation". Radiation cannot be stored." CS137 is indeed stored. It mimics Potassium which many organisms such as kelp collect and keep in it metabolic system. And though it is commonly believed that CS137 will pass out of humans eventually, Soviet scientist showed that was not the case. He was imprisoned with a gag order.

"Non-lethal radiation exposure can compromise immune system function AT SUFFICIENTLY HIGH LEVELS. These levels are usually some fraction of what is considered lethal (1/10th to 1/4th)(There is some evidence to suggest that low levels actually enhances immune system, but this has never been confirmed.)" Can you point to me where they have measured radiation in the internal organs of the starfish and how much the highest areas of radiation exist? Also can you show me where non-lethal radiation which harms the immune system in a starfish is 1/4-1/10 of lethal radiation, and what is the quantity of lethal radiation for a starfish? Measurements for the level of radiation for the starfish will be significantly higher than contaminated water since it bioaccumulates it.

"Possibly, but unlikely. Warmer water HAS been tied to the spread of sea star wasting disease. And while the levels of radioactive material did peak in 2014(?), they have since dropped to where they are a very small amount above previous (atom bomb) background levels. Previous much higher concentrations of Cs137 in the water have not been tied to sea star die off. @t" That paper shows nothing but a cartoon like picture. Did you send the wrong web address?

There is no evidence because science is not looking for it. When the die off of starfish began in 2013-4, the head of marine science labs at UC Santa Cruz said "he could NOT rule out Fukushima radiation as the original cause". This scientist disappeared from public view and all attempts to reach him has failed. No marine lab has done any autopsy or dissections looking for the tell tale markers of Cs234. But that is because they are prevented from doing so by their own management. Kelp watch shut down right when the radionuclides were beginning to show on the California Coast which was the same time that the starfish collapse happened. Coincidence? You can live in your denial all you want but all you have to do is go to the shorelines of Northern California and you will see a dead ocean. I don't know anything about this Dana guy but I know what I see. And regarding my radiation readings, anyone can go to the beaches I went to and get the same result. Do a google search on bioaccumulation of radiation by sea life and see what you get. You are an industry shill denier, not someone interested in the truth.

There's plenty of scientists looking for radiation induced issues with the world's oceans, you just refused to look: www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2013/05/30/1221834110.full.pdf www.deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/pacific-bluefin-tuna www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 Scientists researching the starfish disease have identified a likely culprit, a densovirus that weakens the sea star's ability to defend itself against microorganisms. It happens every so often, even long before anyone knew what a Fukushima was: th-cam.com/video/VPSFdjvES_Y/w-d-xo.html Show your evidence of "This scientist disappeared from public view and all attempts to reach him has failed." That's your typical "they can't tell you /hiding the truth" bullshit used by fear mongers. Name the scientist and what he/she supposedly said. I have gone to the shores of Northern California and also did radiation testing there. th-cam.com/video/j34qCccoq2E/w-d-xo.html By the way, did you know I do more radiation testing than anyone on TH-cam? Radiation doesn't "bioaccumulate" get your memes right. Your comment "about this Dana guy" shows you have seen a comment that proves you wrong on this very video and you deleted it or refused to post it which shows your dishonesty since he was never mentioned in this thread. That also means you will probably delete or refuse to allow this comment to post since it shows how wrong you are. Yes, I am the poster of the comment you deleted, I test out channels to see what they censor using multiple channels. Now answer to all your current lies before you move on in a gish gallop to more lies. That's not how I roll.

@@ForbiddTV Give me the resource and identity of research conducted specifically about echinoderms, known bioaccumulators of radiation. And I don't give a rats ass about blue fin tuna. If you knew anything at all about radiation and sea life, unlike air breathing mammals, most salt water fish excrete a significant portion of any radiation they take in. A salt water fish can be exposed to quite high CS137 and within a few months test completely at ambient. I will bet you didn't know that. But the real thing that shows me your relative ignorance on the whole topic is that your research study that you cite as proof that no radiation exists in coastal sea life, the pnas study, is dated in 2011. There was no problem with any sea life on coastal california at that time! You have no concept of understanding the sequential time line of what happened on the California Coast! In stead, you look for anything that will support what you say, regardless if its relevant or not. The plume of CS137 carried by ocean currents didn't arrive until more than 2 years after incident! And you insult that Dana guy. While he has no science to back what he claims he has a lot of anecdotal evidence from his diving experiences to know something strange was going on. And so it was the same for me. Your aggression and insults that you shower on every one, truly belies you underlying ignorance.

@@greatgambino www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1730663X

miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/sea-stars-sentinels-for-radionuclides-nuclear-waste/ "Results of experiments thus far have indicated that M. balthica can accumulate diverse radionuclides from a wide variety of food sources; seven different algal species have thus far been examined. The assimilation efficiency of ingested radionuclides varies greatly among the radionuclides and less among the different foods for a given radionuclide. have found significant transfer of 241 Am, some transfer of 57 Co and virtually no transfer of 137 Cs to the starfish…"

Yes in German the dachshund, or Tekshund, means badger dog. That would be a full size dachshund that could do that. A badger can kill any dog including my American Bull dog above ground. They have deadly claws and are ferocious. I have seen videos of the cousin to our North American badger, the honey badger in Africa, hold off a couple of lions and actually chase them! The dachshund can kill a badger underground because of 2 advantages, the biggest being its hugh lungs. Also it has a very short coat and no hair on stomach for cooling. It faces off against the badger in the hole and winds it out of breath and overheating the badger since it has a very heavy coat. The dachshunds lungs can get O2 out of very thin air. that is why they can go to sleep under heavy blankets and never have to stick their head out! And doing this kind of hunt is where the dachshund had a stubborn, determined and very brave attitude, as its breed description says, "brave to the point of foolhardiness"