2021·08·07 Joe Biden Didn’t Win Daily Thread

Justice Must Be Done.

The prior election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.

Nothing else matters at this point. Talking about trying again in 2022 or 2024 is hopeless otherwise. Which is not to say one must never talk about this, but rather that one must account for this in ones planning; if fixing the fraud is not part of the plan, you have no plan.

The Audit

The Audit is definitely heating up. Let’s see if the Opposition manages to squelch it and its consequences. I’ll be honest; I expect it to be ignored by anyone capable of ordering Biden/Harris to step down.

Nevertheless, anything that can be done to make Biden look less legitimate is a worthy thing!

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

Spot (i.e., paper) Prices

Last week:

Gold $1815.20
Silver $25.56
Platinum $1053.00
Palladium $2747.00
Rhodium $19,500.00

This week, 3PM Mountain Time, markets have closed for the weekend.

Gold $1763.90
Silver $24.48
Platinum $985.00
Palladium $2712.00
Rhodium $21,150.00

Gold was up in the 1810s all week up to Friday morning, but tanked HARD on that day, down $41.20. Everything took a beating, honestly, except rhodium which went up.

Part XIII – Rutherford On A Roll

We left off, circa 1903, having discovered radioactivity and the electron, and making quite a bit of progress with them.

To try to recap (and there are a few things in this so-called “recap” that I should have mentioned earlier, but didn’t), an electron is a negatively charged particle about 1/1830th the mass of a hydrogen atom, which up to then had been the lightest thing known to exist. They could be knocked off of atoms in a Crookes tube and they would then form what was called a cathode ray (yes, the same “cathode ray” in those big tubes in those old boxy TVs). It is possible to strip one electron off a hydrogen atom, at which point the remaining piece of the hydrogen atom (called an ion) had a positive charge that balanced the electron’s negative charge. The atom as a whole was neutral, charge 0; the individual pieces also added up to 0. Even though there was plenty of mass left in the ion, easily enough for hundreds more electrons, no one could get a second electron to come out of a hydrogen atom.

Thomson, the discoverer of the electron, suggested that atoms were fairly solid spheres of positive electrical charge with little electron inclusions that could be knocked out to ionize the atom; this was called the plum pudding model of the atom.

Radioactivity had been discovered in 1896. Uranium and thorium, it turns out, are radioactive. Radioactivity turned out to consist of three types of rays, alpha, beta, and gamma.

Alpha rays turned out to be identical to doubly-ionized helium, i.e., helium from which two electrons had been stripped (and there was no sign of being able to strip away a third electron from helium). Helium itself had been discovered on Earth back in 1895, trapped in a uranium ore; its atomic mass was four times that of hydrogen. Clearly the helium had begun as alpha particles, then combined with electrons in the ore to become helium gas. The charge of an alpha particle is 2e.

Beta rays turned out to be high-speed electrons. Their charge, of course, is –e.

Gamma rays turned out to be electromagnetic radiation, extremely strong electromagnetic radiation, like X-rays on steroids. Gamma rays, like all photons, have no electrical charge at all.

Alpha rays could be stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta rays could penetrate many sheets of paper, but would be stopped by a thin sheet of metal. Gamma rays required a lot of shielding to stop.

Uranium (atomic weight ~238) and thorium (atomic weight ~232), which had just been discovered to be radioactive, were the heaviest known elements, roughly 238 and 232 times as massive, atom for atom, as hydrogen. The Curies discovered that uranium ore was four times as radioactive as the ores it contained; they were able to isolate two new elements, radium (atomic weight 226) and polonium (atomic weight 210), by processing tons of the ore pitchblende.

It was also clear that a pure block of refined uranium would grow more radioactive over time, eventually reaching a level significantly higher than before, but not nearly as high as the ores.

In radioactive decay, the total amount of energy released, relative to the mass, turned out to be staggeringly huge, thousands if not millions of times more than what was released by burning chemicals. In 1904 Ernest Rutherford (who had named the three types of radiation, and who is the star of today’s story) suggested that radioactivity could provide enough energy to power the sun for the many millions of years necessary for Darwinian evolution to take place. (Previously known sources of energy were woefully inadequate; it was one of the 1895 mysteries I listed.)

At the time atomic weight was considered to be a defining characteristic of an element. This would cause some confusion for a few years.

Some stuff I should have covered previously, but didn’t:

The electric charge of an electron is about -1.602 x 10-19 coulombs. This is a negative number (because Benjamin Franklin arbitrarily picked one kind of charge to be positive and the other negative, and when the electron was discovered, it happened to be the one he tagged as negative), so, perhaps a bit counterintuitively, physicists define the minimum charge e to be +1.602 x 10-19 coulombs, i.e., -1 times the charge of an electron. Physicists, in fact, find it far more convenient to use e as the unit of electric charge when talking about atoms, that way they don’t have to sling 10-19s everywhere.

And they do something similar for energy. Just like a falling weight generates kinetic energy (a mass being attracted to another mass by gravity, speeds up that mass), an electron responding to one volt of electrical potential generates a certain amount of energy, which is defined to be an “electron volt.” This is abbreviated eV (which spell checkers will try to “fix” the capitalization of). This ends up being 1.602 x 10-19 joules. (Notice it’s the same factor, 1.602 x 10-19. This is a consequence of the way the joule, coulomb, and volt are defined.) Energy at the atomic level, particularly when dealing with chemical energy, tends to be a convenient, human-relatable number of electron volts.

And a reminder: An atomic mass unit was defined, in 1898, as 1/16th the mass of an oxygen molecule. This was very close to the mass of a hydrogen atom, but because oxygen reacted with more things, it was easier to use it as a yardstick. [This definition has since been modified, for reasons I’ll explain below.] It was equal to 1.6604675209 x 10-27 kilograms. (This is slightly different from today’s value.) It was abbreviated “amu.” Atomic weights were expressed in amu’s, so oxygen’s atomic weight was 16.0000, and hydrogen’s was almost exactly 1.0: In 1949, under this definition, it was measured at 1.008 amu. (At least, according to a 1951-52 CRC handbook–well, it’s a book that fits King Kong’s hand–that I happen to own.)

OK, so that, I believe, catches us up.

Ernest Rutherford, 1871-1937
I’ll be honest, as I was researching this, I was surprised how many times Rutherford’s name kept coming up. I had known about a few of the things he had done (the gold foil experiment being the most famous) but in fact he was all over everything that happened, it seems. It seems he was at least in the room for a lot of things I talked about last time (like the discovery of the elctron).
He fully deserved having an element named after him (Z=104).
If parts of this caption make no sense…read on.

A Plethora of Radioactive Elements?

Scientists continued to investigate radioactivity. They would find more and more elements, distinguished by their atomic masses, in both uranium and thorium ores.

Even as early as 1900-1903 Rutherford was involved in this effort. Looking at thorium “emanations” with his student Frederick Soddy, they discovered thorium x and a gas, thoron. At first they thought these were special forms of thorium, but then they realized these were not thorium. By 1903 they had concluded that these emanations were the result of thorium changing into another element. This was a very bold conclusion, since chemists up to now had believed elements were immutable, that such things were alchemist balogna. (And under normal circumstances this was true…but radioactivity was something fundamentally new, and certainly nothing like what the alchemists had thought of.)

So perhaps these new elements could fill in the large gap between bismuth and thorium in the periodic table? Well, they could, but it turned out that in fact, there were way too many of them. Realistically between lead and uranium there was room for nine elements, and we already had five of them: bismuth, polonium, radium, radon (which was basically the thoron gas) and thorium. But just in uranium ore there seemed to be about thirty of them (based on my count looking at a chart in Wikipoo–perhaps they had found fewer than that before they figured out what was actually going on). Thorium ores brought in another ten or so.

But it was very, very difficult to separate out these putative elements. For instance Soddy in 1910 showed that mesothorium, atomic weight 228, radium, atomic weight 226, and thorium X, atomic weight 224, were impossible to separate chemically, as if they were the same element. But how could that be so when the atomic weights were different? Trying to place these elements in the table led Soddy and Kazimierz Fajans to independently come up with the notion of radioactive displacement in 1913. Basically, this stated that an alpha decay reduced an atom’s mass by about four amu (the mass of the alpha particle), and also moved it two places to the left on the periodic table. (If such a thing were to happen to (say) nickel, it would become iron, which is two spots to the left of nickel. But it won’t.) A beta decay left the mass almost unchanged (the mass of the electron that gets kicked out is relatively insignificant), but moved the element one place to the right. (If an atom of palladium were to undergo a beta decay, it would become silver. This has happened under very special circumstances, ones that won’t affect the palladium bullion I hope you own.) Gamma decay had no such effect; apparently it was just a way to get rid of energy.

For this work Rutherford won the 1908 Nobel Prize for Physics.

But he hadn’t even got started yet.

The Isotope

Now if one used the radioactive displacement principle, it appeared that two or more different “elements” could occupy the same place on the periodic table. The three I named above all fit in the same square, directly under barium. Because they occupied the same place, they were termed isotopes, from Greek for “the same place.”

So you had “elements” of different mass that otherwise behaved identically. At this point chemists decided that the mass wasn’t as important as the behavior, and swallowed the concept of two different atomic weights representing the same element, rather than insisting they must be different elements solely because of different atomic weights. Atomic weight wasn’t necessarily a crucial characteristic of an element, particularly when it came to ones extracted from radioactive ones.

In 1912, meanwhile, J. J. Thomson, who had discovered the electron in 1897 (with some help from Rutherford, it turns out) wasn’t done yet, had ionized neon (which was the tenth element listed on the periodic table at the time) in a Crookes tube and magnetically and electrically deflected its ions, the same way that he had deflected electrons in 1897, to determine the ions’ charge to mass ratio. He was quite surprised to see these ions, which should have weighed in at about 21.18 amus, went to two different locations! Some were deflecting more than others, because they were lighter than those others.

Assuming that they were singly ionized, with one electron removed (it takes a lot more energy to take the second electron off than it did the first), one group of ions had an atomic weight of almost exactly 20, the other had an atomic weight of almost exactly 22. The atomic weight of neon had been measured as 20.179, which made it one of those cases where the atomic weight was not almost a whole number, but now it looked like that was actually an average value. Most neon had atomic weight of almost exactly 20, but some came in at about 22, and the weighted (ahem) average was 20.179.

So now, even perfectly ordinary stable elements had isotopes, and this time no one thought these must be two different elements because the weights are different. In modern terms neon consists of a mix of neon-20 and neon-22.

I have mentioned in the past that many elements had “atomic weights” or “atomic masses” that were almost a perfect multiple of hydrogen’s. These mostly turn out to be elements with exactly one isotope in nature, or perhaps more than one isotope but one of them is much, much more common than the other(s).

Hydrogen, it turns out, has two isotopes found in nature, hydrogen-1 and hydrogen-2. Hydrogen-1 is overwhelmingly common, hydrogen-2 is rare, a bit more than one atom in ten thousand hydrogen atoms is hydrogen-2.

For various reasons, the isotopes of hydrogen actually ended up with “real” names–not true for any other element! Hydrogen-1 is called protium and hydrogen-2 is called deuterium.

The actual atomic mass of hydrogen is a bit higher than the atomic weight of pure protium expressed in kilograms, because the tiny amount of deuterium pulls the average up.

If, in an alternate universe, the atomic mass unit had been defined differently so that hydrogen–mixed hydrogen–got an atomic mass of 1 unit, this would actually have been slightly higher than the atomic mass of pure protium, because the occasional deuterium atom pulls the average up.

But in the real world, the atomic mass unit was defined to be 1/16th the atomic weight of oxygen. So oxygen was 16.0000 by definition. Hydrogen ended up being a hair more than 1.008. Could the excess be due to the deuterium? Not so fast. Oxygen, it turned out in 1919, consists of three isotopes. Oxygen-16 is overwhelmingly more common than oxygen-17 and oxygen-18. But even if you set pure oxygen-16’s atomic weight to 16.00 by definition, and then look at the atomic weight of pure protium, pure protium doesn’t come in at precisely 1.000. There’s still this slight tendency to be off just a bit from integers. At the time no one knew why, but they knew about it well enough to talk about a mass defect. But at least now, we understood the elements that were way off from being whole integer atomic weights–they were mixtures of isotopes. So this is a partial answer to one of our mysteries.

Physicists often discussed different isotopes of the same element. Chemists rarely did back then. Physicists used the whole number to label them, rather than the exact number. This whole number was termed the “mass number” and had the symbol A (from German Atomgewicht). I’ve been using these mass numbers a lot so far, and will continue to do so.

So we have three things with similar-sounding names. There’s the atomic mass unit (amu), almost (but not quite) equal to the mass of a hydrogen atom. There’s an atomic weight, measured in atomic mass units, which represents the mass of the atom. But there is also a mass number, which is a rounded version of the atomic weight, for a specific isotope. Hydrogen’s atomic weight is 1.0008, but the mass number of its most common isotope was just simply 1. When doing ordinary chemistry weighing out reactants the atomic weight is used to compute the number of moles of each reactant. When talking about isotopes, the mass number is used, without fail.

(Looking ahead a little: In the 1920s physicists began using a physical atomic mass unit, that really was based on oxygen-16 rather than mixed oxygen. To distinguish it from the other one, the prior one was called the chemical atomic mass unit–which the chemists kept on using. And then it turned out that oxygen obtained from water had a slightly different isotope mixture and hence real atomic weight, than oxygen extracted from the air. So the chemists’ unit was based on a foundation of quicksand. But even using the physical amu, the atomic weight of a pure isotope was still never a clean, perfect integer, except for oxygen-16.

(But now we had two slightly different units with very similar names. In 1961 they compromised, and created the “unified atomic mass unit” (symbol u, also called the dalton, symbol Da) that was 1/12th of the mass of a carbon-12 atom. This was closer to the chemists’ standard than to the physicists’.

(No matter what standard was chosen, however, the only isotope that had a perfect integer mass was the reference isotope. All others were off, just a bit.

(But that was all in the future. Let’s return to our story, back to 1912.)

The Nucleus

Backing up just a couple of years from there, there had been another very important discovery in 1909 by Ernest Rutherford. He was collaborating with Hans Geiger (who is definitely a counter) and Ernest Marsden.

They used a beam of alpha rays (which, as a reminder, are heavy and positively charged) to bombard a very thin layer of gold foil. They were pretty much expecting those alpha particles to plow through the “plum pudding” atoms. Instead, though most indeed cruised right through the gold atoms as if nothing were there, a very few of them bounced away at sharp angles, repelled by an intense and concentrated positive charge. Some even bounced back towards the beam source! Rutherford said, in a very famous quote: “It was quite the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life. It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you.”

In 1911 Rutherford argued that those alpha particles were bouncing off an atomic nucleus. This meant that an atom consisted almost entirely of empty space. All of that positive charge (and almost all of the mass of the atom) was in a tiny, tiny, very dense body about 1/10,000th the width of the atom; the rest of the space was the domain of the electrons, which orbited the nucleus much like planets orbit the sun, except in this case the attractive force wasn’t gravity, but the attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electrons. This was a new model of the atom, called the “Rutherford Model.” Rutherford is credited with discovering the atomic nucleus.

The differences between the Thomson model of the atom and the Rutherford model, and how they imply the alpha scattering experiment would turn out. The top, “plum pudding” model is of an atom that has a uniform density with electrons imbedded; the overwhelming majority of the alpha particles would have no trouble plowing straight through the “goop.” The bottom shows that all the mass (other than orbiting electrons, which are less than a thousandth of the mass) is concentrated in a nucleus that is much denser than anything we see in our daily lives, and the alpha rays will bounce off of it if they get anywhere close to it. Which was rare but happened. The red “nucleus” in the diagram is drawn far, far larger than it should be (a mere dot would still be too large).

And in fact that number understates things; according to modern measurements entire atoms can be anywhere from 26,000 to 60,000 times as wide as their nuclei. Which works to to be anywhere from 17.6 – 216 trillion times the volume.

Atomic Number

Later that year, Antonius van den Broek proposed that the sequential location of each element in the periodic table was equal to its nuclear charge, this charge (in units of e) was the atom’s atomic number. This fit well for hydrogen, which could only have one electron stripped off, leaving a +1e charged nucleus behind. And for helium, which could be ionized twice leaving a +2e charged nucleus behind. They were the first and second elements listed in the table. However, we couldn’t strip every atom down to a bare nucleus to see its charge; the heavier the atom the harder it was to do that.

This was a new concept. Chemists had talked about the atomic weight of an atom, never its number. You could list the elements in the order they appeared in the periodic table, of course (accounting for the very few unfilled “holes” in the grid), but the place on the list wasn’t considered terribly significant. But now it appeared as if charges came in discrete quantities, and given that one could only remove one electron from a hydrogen atom, and two from the atom with the next higher weight, the implication was that this nucleus had a specific charge, an integer multiple of the charge of an electron (but with the opposite sign). So hydrogen’s atomic number was 1, helium’s was 2. Lithium’s was 3. And so on, through carbon (6), oxygen (8), aluminum (13), iron (26), zinc (30), rhodium (45), silver (47), tin (50), platinum (78), gold (79), lead (82), thorium (90), and uranium (92), to give some examples. (However the exact numbers for anything above the upper fifties really weren’t certain at this point.)

This was only a suggestion…until about two years later. I will pick that story up next time, because it actually ties in more with electrons, and this week I want to concentrate on the nucleus. Suffice it for now to say that van den Broek was absolutely right. I’m going to reference the concept of atomic number, abbreviated Z (from German Zahl, ‘number’), from here forward.

The Proton

So, let’s continue Rutherford’s story. In 1917 he ran some more experiments. He fired alpha beams into air (which is mostly nitrogen), and detected hydrogen ions. After refining his experiment, he realized that the alpha particles were reacting with the nitrogen. When he reported his results in 1919, he claimed that the alpha particle had simply knocked a hydrogen nucleus out of a nitrogen nucleus, reducing the nitrogen nucleus’ charge (and atomic number) and weight by one and thereby turning it into carbon. Nitrogen-14 was seemingly becoming carbon-13, a rare (but stable) isotope of carbon, which is mostly carbon-12.

But by then we had cloud chambers and could see some forms of radioactivity and ions leaving trails through the chamber. In 1925, Rutherford examined some cloud chamber tracks of this reaction, and he realized he was totally wrong about what was happening. The alpha particle wasn’t bouncing off the nitrogen nucleus after knocking one proton out of it. No, it was disappearing. What was in fact happening was the nitrogen nucleus, 7 positive charges, total mass 14, was absorbing the alpha particle.

I mentioned, up above, the principle of radioactive displacement. An atom, spitting out an alpha particle moves two places to the left on the periodic table. That means its atomic number decreases by two. The atomic mass drops by four.

Absorbing an alpha particle has exactly the opposite effect. The atomic number increases by two, and the atomic mass increases by four. So the nitrogen-14 was becoming fluorine-18.

Immediately upon becoming fluorine-18, the nucleus then shed a proton, which was the hydrogen ion that Rutherford saw. This turned it into oxygen-17, stable but uncommon (most oxygen being oxygen-16).

But in the meantime, people had decided that that hydrogen nucleus was a basic particle, and it was named the proton. It’s regarded as having been discovered in 1919, since that was the first time it was seen to exist having come from some source other than hydrogen gas. or in 1920 when someone suggested it might be an elementary particle. Rutherford, as the discoverer, got to name it.

William Prout, clear back in 1815, had suggested that the other elements might be built up, somehow, from hydrogen, and now it looked like he was at least partly right. Hydrogen indeed consisted of a single proton, mass 1, and an electron, and other elements apparently had 2, 3, 4 or more protons, all the way up to uranium with 92 of them–each with a matching electron. You couldn’t just bundle hydrogen atoms together to get other kinds of atoms, but conceivably, if you separated the electrons and protons, then combined the protons, and put the electrons back in place, you could get larger atoms.

In fact, Rutherford had suggested both the name “proton” and the name “prouton” for this particle, the latter to honor Prout. (The English would have pronounced “prouton” as if it rhymed with “grout on”, and the French would have made it rhyme with “crouton” so we dodged a bullet of linguistic confusion there.)

The proton’s mass is 1.007 amus (using the modern AMU scale). Again, maddeningly close to a whole number. But because of this, the proton looked like the underpinning for atomic number but it couldn’t be the underpinning of atomic mass. That’s because, to take an example, oxygen’s nucleus has eight protons in it, but a mass of sixteen, twice as much as the protons. Uranium is even more out of whack. It has 92 protons, but its most common isotope has a mass of 238, leaving 146 mass units unaccounted for! Why? We didn’t know, yet.

In 1920, Rutherford voiced a suggestion. He thought that the excess mass consisted of a number of protons and electron pairs, bound to each other to make a net neutral bundle. So an oxygen-16 nucleus actually contained sixteen protons, but eight of them were bundled with, and masked by, electrons. The net positive charge is eight, and that’s critical because it requires eight orbiting electrons to balance out, and those eight orbiting electrons are responsible for oxygen’s chemical properties. So the chemical nature of an atom ultimately depended on the number of protons not in these bundles.

This actually made quite a bit of sense. Remember beta decay? This is where a nucleus can spit out an electron. The electron has a single negative charge. In order to make up for that loss, the nucleus has to gain a positive charge; it’s as if a new proton were appearing. But if Rutherford’s idea were correct, rather than a proton and an electron being magically created, one of these bound pairs was breaking apart, freeing the electron and unmasking the hidden proton.

Another thing arguing in Rutherford’s favor was the fact that whatever-it-is that was left over in the nucleus had a mass that was nearly that of a whole number of protons; it would make sense for the missing ingredient to be that number of “masked” protons.

Physicists would spend the 1920s thinking that the nucleus consisted of a number of protons equal to the mass number A, plus a bunch of nuclear electrons, which left a net number of “unmasked” protons equal to Z. With some mysterious “mass defect” making the total mass slightly off.

But there were some theoretical difficulties with this…which I will take up in a future installment.

Who Cares About Isotopes?

Until late in the last century, chemists almost never concerned themselves with differing isotopes. That’s because oxygen-16’s chemical behavior is nearly indistinguishable from oxygen-17’s. Because the oxygen-17 is a bit heavier, it’s perhaps a tiny bit slower to react than oxygen-16, but not much. If you were to liquefy oxygen-16 and oxygen-17, then measure their boiling points, the oxygen-17 would require a slightly higher temperature to boil, because it would take just a little bit more energy to kick those heavier oxygen-17 atoms into vapor. Melting and boiling points are in fact the biggest difference a chemist might see…if he had separated samples to work with in the first place. And chemical means of separation were simply untenable; they were too much alike.

Water made with oxygen-17 and oxygen-18 evaporates a bit less readily than water with oxygen-16, so rainwater tends to be slightly richer in oxygen-16 than seawater (and this is part of the reason we had to stop defining the atomic mass unit as 1/16th of mixed oxygen–the mix could differ depending on where you got the oxygen from).

The chemical differences between protium (hydrogen-1) and deuterium (hydrogen-2) are actually significant, due to the fact that proportionally, the difference is greater than for any other pair of isotopes. Water made out of deuterium (“heavy water”) instead of protium actually melts at 4C, rather than 0C. I’ve seen a video of a heavy water ice cube sunk to the bottom of a glass of cold (regular) water. It’s not going to melt as long as that water is properly chilled. Note that I said the bottom of a glass of cold water. It doesn’t float because it’s heavier than regular ice and heavier even than regular water. (Now, if it were in a glass of heavy water, it would float.)

And of course, heavy water, because of its significantly different chemical behavior, is toxic when pure.

Other than that, for “traditional” chemistry, isotopes just didn’t matter.

Today things are a bit different. Mass spectrometers–which are the descendant of Crookes tubes, designed to ionize, accelerate, and deflect atoms and molecules to see how much they deflect and thus figure out the masses–are relatively cheap, and they can read out absolute numbers of “hits” at each possible mass. So one can run a sample of water through one of these and get a very precise notion of the isotopic composition. Now, you can tell whether a sample of water was rain water or ground water. Or you can analyze a sample of metal and be able to tell where it was mined, because it turns out each mine has a slightly different isotopic mix of the metal. Or one can prove that CO2 was added to champagne artificially, because the CO2 used has no carbon-14 in it (whereas the carbon dioxide in fermentation does).

Incidentally, if you’ve ever had TSA swab your luggage then stuff the swab into a machine which tells them you aren’t carrying explosives–that device is a mass spectrometer.

That’s today. But back in 1910, chemists didn’t give a rip about isotopes. Physicists studying radioactivity, on the other hand, knew that “which isotope is this?” could make all the difference in the world. And that’s even more true today too, now that we can artificially make all sorts of radioactive isotopes that don’t exist in nature. We now have to concern ourselves with radioactive hydrogen-3 (“tritium”), cesium-137, iodine-131 and strontium-90…and these were elements that were never radioactive in the days of the Model T and the Wright Flyer.

In 1910 we were just starting down this road. Remember, Rutherford had made fluorine-18 and oxygen-17 artificially.

Decay Chains

Keep this in mind as we go back now to uranium (atomic number Z=92) and thorium (Z=90). Remember that whole process of figuring out the pieces of an atom started in part because of the discovery of radioactivity, a property of these two elements in particular.

At the time of today’s story, had become quite clear that when there was radioactivity, one kind of atom was changing into another, this is called “decay.”

Uranium and thorium decay very slowly, or I should say, uranium-235, uranium-238, and thorium-232 decay very slowly (as I said, the isotope matters). It’s a statistical process. When you are looking at one uranium-235 atom, it could decay a second from now…or it could wait a billion years. There’s no way to know when it will happen, but it’s almost a stable nucleus; it’s very, very unlikely to blow in the next second. And if that atom is still around in a billion years, someone watching it then is just as unlikely to see it go kablooey in the next second as you are today.

I’m going to get on a soap box here, for just a minute. Let’s say you watch someone flip a coin 20 times and it comes up tails each time. Do you think, “wow, it’s overdue to come up heads, I’ll bet it comes up heads next time?” If so, you have a “naive” view of probability. The more sophisticated view is that, since the tosses are independent events they aren’t affected by each other. The chance is 50/50 of heads next time, no matter how many times in a row it has come up tails just now. But then, there is the cynic’s view. He doesn’t believe the odds are fifty/fifty either. But he doesn’t figure it’s overdue to come up heads; he figures the coin probably is crooked; perhaps tails on both sides! And he might have a point there. The smart bet, if you’re not allowed to examine the coin, is probably to bet on “tails.” But, if the coin really is fair, the 50/50 view is correct.

Similarly, for the chances of an unstable nucleus going kablooey in the next second, or minute. A billion years from now, provided your unstable nucleus hasn’t gone kablooey in the meantime and it’s still around, it’s just as likely to not go kablooey in the next second, as it is to not go kablooey in the next second today.

At an individual atom level, radioactivity isn’t predictable. But, if you take a large number of atoms of one of these three isotopes (or of any unstable isotope for that matter), you can make some predictions.

You can say, for instance, that any large sample of uranium-235 will be half gone in about 700 million years. Half of the atoms (no way to predict beforehand which specific ones) will have decayed to something else. Does that mean that the other half will decay in another 700 million years? Absolutely not. If you start with a pound sample of uranium-235, after 700 million years, you now have a half-pound sample of uranium-235, now mixed in with a bunch of impurities to be sure, but a half pound sample nonetheless, and half of that sample will decay in the next 700 million years.

700 million years is the half life of uranium-235. Similarly, uranium-238 has a 4.5 billion year half life, and thorium-232 comes in at 14 billion years.

You get one guess as to who discovered the concept of a half life in 1907. I’ll give you a tiny hint: He did it using one of the short-lived isotopes in the thorium decay chain, one that was deposited by decaying radon gas.

Thorium-232’s half life is about three times that of uranium-238. As you can imagine, given a godzillion uranium-238 atoms, and a godzillion thorium-232 atoms, you’ll see three times as many decays in a day from the uranium as from the thorium. But it also scales by quantity; two godzillion thorium-232 atoms will produce twice as many decays in a day as one godzillion will. And three godzillion thorium-232 atoms will produce as many decays in a day as one godzillion uranium-238 atoms. Keep this in mind–the ratio of the half lives is same as the ratio of quantity, for the same number of decays to occur from samples of two different isotopes.

[A “godzillion” is a highly technical word someone made up once for a really large number. He used it to describe the national debt when it was a lot smaller than it is now. However, even today’s national debt pales next to the number of atoms in a mole (which would be 600 sextillion or so). I decided to adapt the term rather than just say “zillions” or “jillions.”]

When an atom of (say) thorium spits out an alpha particle, it actually changes to another element and another isotope; it is decaying. If the new isotope is also unstable, it too will decay, again and again until the result is a stable nucleus. Eventually the starting thorium-232 nucleus will have become a lead-208 nucleus.

OK, with thorium being Z=90 and lead being Z=82, we can do a little bit of accounting-style sleuthing. The difference between these two masses–the change in A–is 24. That’s the equivalent of six alpha particles. In fact, since the only mode of decay that changes an atomic weight is alpha decay, we expect exactly six alpha decays to occur during this process.

But going from thorium to lead would involve changing Z by eight, which is something you’d get from four alpha decays at two apiece. Six alpha decays, absolutely required by the mass change, give you a reduction of Z by 12, and so it looks like you’d end not with lead-208 but rather platinum-208 (which if it even exists, surely isn’t stable).

Beta decays come to the rescue. They move you one element to the right, without changing the mass. So if you figure that the total number of alpha decays is six, reducing Z by 12, but then throw four beta decays into the mix, increasing Z by four, it balances; the net reduction of Z is 8. The total set of reactions boils down to:

Thorium-232 (Z=90, A=232) – 6 alphas (Z=12, A=24) – 4 betas (Z=-4, A=0) = Lead-208 (Z=82, A=208).

(Remember when subtracting the four betas, you are subtracting a negative number, which means to add the opposite positive number.)

If you look at the detailed sequence of events, this is exactly what happens. Thorium-232 decays by alpha particle to radium 228 (Z=88, A=228 one alpha decay so far). Radium-228 then undergoes a beta decay to get actinium-228 (Z=89, A=228, alpha, one beta so far). Actinium-228 undergoes another beta decay to get thorium-228 (Z=90, A=228; one alpha, two betas so far).

Let’s pause here to look at the half lives. The original thorium-232 has a fourteen billion year half life. That means that (on a percentage basis) very, very little of it decays in (say) one day. The radium-228 has a 5.7 year half life. The actinium-228 has a 6.1 hour half life. The thorium-228 has a … wait for it! … 1.9 year half life. (It’s thorium, but it’s not thorium-232 and that makes all the difference in the world when it comes to half lives.)

If you started with a pure thorium-232 sample and waited about ten years, a certain amount of radium-228 has accumulated. As it accumulates, you can detect more and more decays of it (because there is more and more of it over time. But it won’t accumulate forever: It turns out that after a few years of building up, there’s now enough of it that it’s decaying about as fast as it’s being created. So you should be able to see based on our discussion above that, given thorium-232’s half life is three billion times as long as radium-228’s, when there is one radium-228 atom for every three billion thorium-232 atoms, then they’ll both produce the same number of decays. But the radium-228 doesn’t go away, because it’s being replenished by the thorium-232 decays. Since the amount isn’t changing over time the radium-228 is in equilibrium with the thorium-232. (The thorium-232 is slowly going away, of course, as it does so it will produce slightly less radium-228 during a given time, so the radium-228 will decline at the same percentage rate. But people don’t live long enough to see this happen, not with a 14 billion year half life!) Equilibrium is reached in something like 1 1/2 or two half lives of the daughter isotope.

Similarly for the actinium-228–because it has a much shorter half life than radium-228, it reaches equilibrium with the radium-228 almost instantly. And so on down the chain. Once everything is at equilibrium, there is one decay of each daughter isotope, for each decay of a thorium-232 atom. This is why a “pure” sample of thorium actually grows more radioactive right after it’s made.

So back to that chain. It continues. Thorium-228 alpha decays to radium-224 (Z=88, A=224, two alphas, two betas so far). Radium-224 alpha decays to radon-220 (Z=86, A=220, three alphas, two betas so far). Radon-220 alpha decays to polonium-216 (Z=84, A=216, four alphas, two betas so far). Polonium-216 alpha decays to lead-212 (Z=82, A=212, now five alphas and two betas so far).

Lead-212 is lead, and lead dug out of the ground is stable, but lead-212 is not stable. It’s an unstable isotope, a very unstable one in fact. Its half life is 10.6 minutes.

The next step is a beta decay, lead-212 becomes bismuth-212 (Z=93, A=212, five alphas, three betas). We now have just one alpha and one beta decay left to get to lead-208. But now, the path splits. We can either do the alpha decay first then the beta decay (thallium-208 (Z=81), then lead-208) or the other way round (polonium-212 (Z=84), then lead-208).

All of these decays from thorium-228 onwards have half lives of days or less, one even has a half life of less than a millionth of a second. So once the thorium-228 reaches equilibrium with its great-grandparent thorium-232, the rest of the chain ends up in equilibrium in just a few days.

The diagram below summarizes this whole process. And it uses a notation I haven’t used yet. So far when I’ve named an isotope, I’ve done it as [element name]-[mass number]. But you can also use a superscript before the element symbol like this: 232Th. Superscripting is a bit of a pain in the ass in the WordPus editor (and besides you might not know all the symbols), so I didn’t do it this way. It can even be taken a step further (and is, in the diagram below). You can put the atomic number Z as a subscript before the symbol, like this: 90Th. (Or you can do both. And I do mean you can do both. I can’t. If I try, I get something like this: 23290Th. I can’t get the super and subscripts one over the other.)

Technically the atomic number is superfluous, thorium is by definition atomic number Z=90. But it’s helpful for all the non-geeks out there who don’t have the numbers memorized.

The Thorium decay series

(Even chemists don’t usually know all of the atomic numbers, nor do they know all of the symbols; I watched one give a lecture on this very sort of thing, and when he showed the symbol Pa, he called it “palladium” (it’s actually protactinium, atomic number Z=91; palladium’s symbol is Pd and its atomic number is Z=46 and its price is almost three thousand dollars an ounce. The symbol was right, his verbal reading was wrong). Chemists will know the common elements like sulfur (16, S), plus ones they themselves are personally working with…unless they’re complete geeks, in which case they’ve memorized them all. By the way, if you ever run into someone claiming to be an organic chemist and they don’t know that carbon’s atomic number is Z=6, he’s a faker. Actually, he’s a lying sack of bearded dragon shit. Run, do not walk, away, from this person, and do not believe him if he tells you that the sky is blue; don’t even believe him if he says that Joe Biden lost.)

One last thing to note about the thorium decay series. Every single isotope on it has a mass number A that divides by four. The starting number divides by four, and any time the mass number changes, it changes by four, so it will always be divisible by four.

The other two decay series have uranium in them. Uranium has two long-lived isotopes, and they are each at the beginning of their own decay chains. You can walk through them if you so desire, but I’m just going to put up the diagrams. The first is the “Uranium decay series” starting with uranium-238:

The uranium decay series

Every one of these isotopes’ mass numbers, when divided by four, leaves a remainder of 2. Therefore, none of these isotopes appears in the thorium decay series, and none of these appear there either. Never the twain shall meet.

Note that one of the intermediates is uranium-234 with 245,000 year half life. If you (personally) start out with pure uranium-238, you won’t live long enough to see it come into equilibrium with its daughter isotopes, because uranium-234 decays too slowly. Over about the next half million years, 234U will build up in the sample and then be in equilibrium. Everything downstream from it is much faster. You will see, rather quickly, the intermediate thorium and protactinium 234 isotopes reach equilibrium, though.

The uranium-235 series is actually called the “actinium decay series” to avoid confusion with the other uranium decay series. It includes the longest-lived actinium isotope, actinium-227.

The Actinium Decay Series

All of these isotope mass numbers, when divided by four, leave a remainder of 3. They therefore won’t appear in either of the first two series, or vice versa.

There ought to be a fourth series, one where all the mass numbers leave a remainder of one when divided by four. Right?

Well, there was. A long time ago. The problem is no isotope in that series (which we can reconstruct today since we can make artificial isotopes) has more than a 2,140,000 year half life. That’s much shorter than the uranium and thorium isotopes in the other series. That isotope is neptunium-237 (Z=93). One of its daughters is uranium-233, with a half life of 159,200 years. Everything else in that series is shorter, much shorter.

If there was any neptunium-237 on earth when it first formed, ten half lives (21.4 million years) would have reduced it to 1/1024th of its original amount. Another ten half lives would have reduced it to less than a thousandth of a thousandth, or less than a millionth of the original amount. A total of eighty half lives would be enough to reduce an entire mole of neptunium to less than one atom on average, an undetectably small concentration, especially since the neptunium probably started out as a minor constituent of whatever rock it was in, to begin with. (Realistically, fifty half lives is probably enough to escape detection by modern equipment.) Seventy half lives is about 170 million years.

There was either never any neptunium-237 when the earth formed, or the earth is at least 170 million years old. In fact, there are a lot of isotopes with even longer half lives (like plutonium-244, half life roughly 80 million years) that do not exist in nature, and the same logic applies: either that isotope was never around, or the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, or even older–plutonium-244’s absence implies billions of years.

Returning to the “neptunium decay series,” because it has no sufficiently long lived isotope, it is extinct. When we started making isotopes artificially, we eventually found neptunium-237, and uranium-233, and all the others, and could then figure out what the neptunium decay series looked like. But back in the 1910s, this was all well in the future.

[Actually, oddball nuclear reactions sometimes create a trace of these isotopes in uranium ore, but that’s an almost immeasurable trace, and clearly not remnants of an original stock.]

The second to last product of the neptunium decay series is bismuth-209. It was long thought to be a stable isotope, but fairly recently it was discovered to have a half life of 19 quintillion years-almost a million years for every dollar of our national debt. It is so weakly radioactive that it might as well be stable, and its radioactivity is consequently almost impossible to measure. When it bestirs itself to do so, it decays to thallium-205, which is unfortunately quite stable. I say unfortunately, because thallium is extremely toxic. There is actually plenty of thallium-205 out there already, but it has to almost all be original or primordial stock, because hardly any bismuth-209 has decayed in a mere few billions of years.

Summing it up

Radioactivity was discovered in 1896. At that time, the words electron and proton didn’t exist. Atoms were indivisible things. Twenty years later, we knew that last bit was wrong, and we were well on our way to knowing the real nature of matter. In large part thanks to Ernest Rutherford.

OK. Next time, we take one step out, back into the realm of the electrons.

Obligatory PSAs and Reminders

China is Lower than Whale Shit

Remember Hong Kong!!!

Whoever ends up in the cell next to his, tell him I said “Hi.”

中国是个混蛋 !!!
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!

China is in the White House

Since Wednesday, January 20 at Noon EST, the bought-and-paid for His Fraudulency Joseph Biden has been in the White House. It’s as good as having China in the Oval Office.

Joe Biden is Asshoe

China is in the White House, because Joe Biden is in the White House, and Joe Biden is identically equal to China. China is Asshoe. Therefore, Joe Biden is Asshoe.

But of course the much more important thing to realize:

Joe Biden Didn’t Win

乔*拜登没赢 !!!
Qiáo Bài dēng méi yíng !!!
Joe Biden didn’t win !!!

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
532 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
gil00

Dr. Brian Tyson, MD 🇺🇸 (@btysonmd) Tweeted:
Leading Israeli Health Official: Vaccinated Account For 95% of Severe and 85-90% of New Covid Hospitalizations; Vaccine Effectiveness is “Really Fading” (VIDEO) https://t.co/Pj7Z1CGh4j

Wolf Moon

NOT TAKING THE VACCINE IS HOW TO SAVE GRANDMA.

ForGodandCountry

Summary

So, we understand that corporations are, by necessity, public institutions. Commerce is necessarily a Public activity, taking place in the Public sphere. (May the Lord have mercy on any family that practices commerce amongst its members). In fact, the blending of Public and Private, the ongoing commodification of everything at the hands of Autonomy-worship and Capital, is a profound evil and one that must be opposed. Of course, it is the very people who most viciously defend “freedom” that are the ones plunging us head-first into a world of Might Makes Right wherein nothing escapes the world of politics and commerce. Is it at all surprising that the Left, those devote Autonomy-worshippers, are as hypercapitalistic as the neoliberals they claim to so thoroughly despise? (Hint: it shouldn’t be)

Once we understand that companies are not properly Private but are actually Public, we can begin to actually discuss how the Public sphere is one governed by the society’s morality. We must continue to understand that economics is embedded in politics which is embedded in ethics. There is no escaping the question of Good in society. “Autonomy”/”Freedom”/”Liberty”/”Self-responsibility” doesn’t cut it. “Harm” doesn’t cut it. “Consent” doesn’t cut it. It is time for a substantive moral outlook once again. Do not be confused by the Fabrication of “Freedom”: it is a recent phenomenon, and certainly a surmountable one. Not so long ago, we had our heads screwed on a little tighter. It’s time to get our sanity back.

.
https://apexsnotes.substack.com/p/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-private

Linda

From Gettr:

comment image

Aubergine

I LOVE THESE!!!!!!!!

para59r

Politics makes strange bedfellows
BLM needs a rebranding to BLM-2.
Either way, step back and watch these passport cities begin to burn.

Also waiting for the one that says, “They got what they wanted from us and now are tossing us from the bus.”

Last edited 1 month ago by para59r
Gail Combs

They are MEMES
I very much doubt they are writen by BLM but since they are true, BLM is between a rock and a hard place. That is what makes them so great.

Memories of The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is NOT going to make Blacks willing to trust the CDC this time around.

piper567

Over at .win (thedonald) they say 4Chan is responsible for this campaign.
Genius.

Itswoot

It’s very likely that Child Protective Services in States around the USA are gearing up for the young (under 18) to be taken custody for “their own safety”.

Article excerpt:

“For months, we’ve been warning people that Covid-19 “vaccine” totalitarianism would eventually lead to government taking our kids if we don’t let them get the jab. Well, it’s happening.
Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the very mRNA technology used in Pfizer and Moderna injections, was on with Steve Bannon on War Room today to explain the situation that’s unfolding in Boston, MA. A 14-year-old child who wants to be vaccinated could not get her parents’ permission, so the court has stepped in and revoked custody in order for her to get vaccinated without their consent.

“So, I’ve been called to testify as an expert witness in a court in Boston. The child who has been removed from their parents’ custody, a 14-year-old,” Malone said. “And the legal system is insisting on vaccinating this 14-year-old.”

Source: https://thelibertydaily.com/it-begins-boston-court-takes-custody-of-biotech-executives-14-year-old-child-to-force-vaccination-against-parents-wishes/

ForGodandCountry

God rebuke them.

Wolf Moon

Democrats did this.

Gudthots

this.is.not.normal
comment image

Wolf Moon

Is this more work of the memesters? It’s GREAT.

Gudthots

everybody gets to meme!
comment image

Wolf Moon

OMG, that’s hilarious!!!

Aubergine

I legit read this sitting in a Subway eating lunch today, and I was laughing SO HARD people were staring like I had lost my mind!

It was great.

Cuppa Covfefe

Remember, as Ashleigh Brilliant wrote,

“Of all the things I’ve lost, I miss my mind the most.”…. 😆

(Or, you could have looked to the right and said “I’m NOT crazy”, then looked to the left and said “and NEITHER AM I” )…

Aubergine

Haha! My reputation is bad enough around here!

Cuppa Covfefe

That’s worthy of an O. Henry award… Brilliant…

Gail Combs

I woke Hubby up I laughed so hard.

Deplorable Patriot

No words. Just none.

ForGodandCountry

Oh, I have a great many, just none suitable for posting here.

I’m trying to make ”God rebuke them” my ultimate judgement vs. cursing at them.

Besides, no one can possibly outdo a rebuke from the Almighty. No. One.

Deplorable Patriot

This is true.

Cuppa Covfefe

This worries me especially as I think it might be much bigger than just for one child. It could well be a (bogus) test case along the lines of those fomented by the SPLC, ACLU, and the rest of the gay mafia, where they put up a basically fake case to challenge existing mores and laws in order to push their depraved and wicked agenda.

In this case, it’s yet another attack on parental custody and authority and responsibility (before GOD) for their childrens’ upbringing. The so-called “UN declaration on the rights of the child” is the Devil’s tool underneath all of this.

And that idiotic court should well know that the USA is NOT a signatory to that “declaration”…

I hope and pray that this specious attempt to wrest the custody and future of that child (and other children) is utterly and completely quashed, either in this court, or the appellate courts.

Such a travesty and abrogation of justice and natural order cannot stand.

Maybe the Mohammedans think that nine years old is a suitable “age of consent”, but that was for Mo Ham Head’s “pleasure”. Who (or perhaps WHO) is benefitting from this?????

Gail Combs

They want to STERILIZE the children PERIOD!!!

The UN Foundation DONATES to the CDC…
 As Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation bluntly put it during an interview with Audubon magazine.
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Source: The book You Don’t Say, by Fred Gielow, 1999, page 189.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies His Co-author, Obama’s Science Czar, John P. Holdren and he wrote Ecoscience.

SCIENCE CZAR JOHN HOLDREN IS UNSURE ABOUT PLACING PEOPLE WHO FUND ‘CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL’ ON TRIAL FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

In 1977, the authors of Ecoscience recommendations , a textbook on environmental issues and population control, endorsed a cornucopia of policies to address the overpopulation crisis and to reduce human fertility. Their 3 included forced abortions, forced sterilizations, involuntary removal of children from families of limited means, government-issued licenses as a requirement to have children, and even the intentional infliction of economic catastrophes on poor countries to reduce population.

The authors of Ecoscience qualified their recommendation for the intentional infliction of economic catastrophe on vulnerable populations: At the very least, [policies that inflict economic catastrophe to reduce fertility] should be considered only if milder measures fail completely.” (Ecoscience p 768.)

The authors specify the “milder measures”: forced abortions, involuntary sterilizations, dissemination of contraceptives in public water and food supplies, and the mandatory surgical implantation of contraceptives in the bodies of pubescent girls that could only be removed when a license to bear a child was provided by the government….

The authors of Ecoscience were and Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren. 

 THE MALTUSIANS SPEAK….

To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas

…”The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. (Brock Chisholm, first Director General of the World Health Organisation)

”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” — David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

para59r

100 million? Geesh, talk about moving the goal posts. It’s to be 500 million until this guy shows up.

Meanwhile the Senate’s 2,700 page, 1 trillion dollar Infrastructure bill that was voted out of committee with the help of 17 Republicans RINO’s address’s science denial. As a crime? Not sure, but you can bet it curbs free speech in some manner.

trumpismine

DAMN them to HELL!

Gail Combs

BOSTON???

VERY BAD!

Just before I moved south a friend found his 12 year old was having sex with an adult and then he found the brother was having sex with his 10 year old. Both perverts were black.

He went after them on statutory rape. The COURT RULED THEY WERE IN ‘LOVE’ AND REMOVED THE GIRL (12) FROM HER PARENTS AND PUT HER IN AN APARTMENT WITH A PROSTITUTE…

THAT is the type of JUST-US you can expect in the Peoples Republic of Commiechusetts.

Aubergine

Hey all!

Question to the group, from a friend of mine who knows we are on it!

Is the Covid TEST, not the vaccine, but the test ITSELF, FDA approved?

Because if it is under an EUA, no one can be forced to take it. Nuremberg Code would forbid it.

So many people are being forced to either take the fake vax or be tested, and they don’t want to do EITHER thing.

So, do we know? Is the test FDA approved?

Deplorable Patriot

Good question since the CDC said it is not reliable due to not being able to distinguish “COVID” from previous viruses. That happened last Friday. Evening.

Aubergine

I believe I may have answered my own question!

Check out this page at the FDS:

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices

The diagnostics are under an EUA! They CAN’T make someone take the test without violating the Nuremberg Code!

Deplorable Patriot

Wow, there are a lot of people breaking that code.

I’m seriously thinking they don’t know what is in the Nuremberg code.

Aubergine

Well, most people don’t know how many judges are on the Supreme Court or who the vice-President is, so that wouldn’t be surprising.

Wolf Moon

Drop a tip to your favorite Gateway Pundit!

Aubergine

Ooooh, I think I will!

Wolf Moon

IMO they will run with it. Finger’s crossed!

Aubergine

I did it. We’ll see.

I guess you saw me on Gab, fangirling TGP, lol!

Wolf Moon

TGP is awesome! If I was a girl, I’d be fangirling them, too! 😉

Gudthots

where? on Gab? you get around!

Aubergine

Don’t tell anybody. 😉

Cuppa Covfefe

Way to go, Aubergine!

Purple people feeder, as it were 🙂

Aubergine

Lol!

Wolf Moon
TheseTruths

Excellent findings! I’ve never seen this quesiton come up before. They are conditioning us to not only reveal our medical information, but also to undergo whatever procedures they dictate. Well, no.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheseTruths
Aubergine

You bet they are! Asshats.

Wolf Moon

Great catch. The ASSHATS are on shakier ground than I thought!

Aubergine

This friend I have is wicked-smart and all over this stuff. She knows about all of you; I talk about what we do here all the time. She asked me to ask all my “excellent researcher friends.”

I love this place.

Wolf Moon

Truth is a good addiction! Jesus says!

Aubergine

Amen, brother Wolfmoon!

Aubergine
Wolf Moon

HA! Excellent!

Aubergine

I think we win this round?

Wolf Moon

I think so. This is a huge scandal. The Demonrats are destroying America over BULLSHIT just to keep power.

ROBERT BAKER

Power is their religion. I think we have already established who their god is.

Aubergine

Oh lord, sorry, that link is LONG.

Wolf Moon

This page is longer! 😉

gil00

So kiddo has to get one to obtain medical care, his mri. So if i go to them, they’ll give me a blank stare. Even if i show them this and deny care. Then what?

cthulhu

Did they request this in writing?

I’m actually somewhat curious — let’s say he took a test and came out negative — so they do the MRI. But what would they do if he took the test and it came out positive? Deny him the MRI then?

And if they would do the MRI no matter the results of the test — what’s the point of the test?

gil00

No. I was told by the ordering MD and by the mri department. I can check online if the order states it. They dont give me paper copues.

gil00

Ok i just checked instructions. Neither the check out paper from the md which shows an order nor the online instructions state covid testing. What should i do?

Aubergine

I would show up as scheduled. If they ask for a test, say it wasn’t in the paperwork. If they want to test, say you want the FDA-approved test only, for obvious reasons. They can’t produce one, it doesn’t exist. Tell them they are NEGLIGENT if they don’t treat your son. Not HIS fault there is no FDA-approved test.

That’s what I’d do.

gil00

His test is under anesthesia, and we have to be there at 6 am. Which means up at 4 am to get there. Not as easy as just showing up.

gil00

They are doing a brain and spine so keeping him still for an hr strapped down wouldnt be easy. I thought about it the last hr, and since this is really a back up in case his casting fails to r/o cerebral palsy and a couple other things, i may just cancel it altogether. 2 years ago Id be more inclined to do it, but the med profession has lost its mind in many ways.

Aubergine

That is so hard for a kid. I’m sorry.

gil00

Yeah, ty. If his legs respond ill cancel it. Ive got a few weeks.

Aubergine

I would ask them to recommend an FDA approved test. They are doctors. It is THEIR job to know this stuff.

I know how hard it is to confront medical people. But if we don’t push, they are going to kill us all, slowly. If I didn’t truly believe that, I wouldn’t say it.

gil00

I have to ask on Tuesday. Itll be an rnp who sees him for the next casting.

Aubergine

Good luck. I hope it goes well.

gil00

Thx.

Gail Combs

At least it is just the test. A friend just got told her 11 year old daughter MUST have the VACCINE in order to receive medical care.

gil00

Wow. That is truly horrible.

Wolf Moon

As her if she wants molecular razor blades next to her daughter’s EGGS.

cthulhu

….and if that doesn’t click, try “molecular razor blades next to her potential grandchildren.”

Wolf Moon

Yup. Sometimes it pays to be direct about these things.

Wolf Moon

See next daily!

cthulhu

Friday night news dump.

Deplorable Patriot

That’s the way I saw it.

Barb Meier

I so wish I had screen shot that page because I went back a few days later to capture the statement again. CDC changed it to omit the statement that the tests do not distinguish between COVID and flu.

kalbokalbs

Rather sure it is on one of QTree posts or even one of Wolf’s articles.

Aubergine

I might be able to find it. Do you have a web address for the page? Even as it is now?

Barb Meier

I’m looking backward through my FB feed and got back to July 28th where I mentioned it regarding another post. That was not long after I first read it. Found it but have not reread the CDC material yet. I kept the whole URL since I wasn’t certain if what comes after the question mark matters in this context. https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html?fbclid=IwAR2W3HLc2ggxsrS0ERq4c2CY1bl7x-vZxRmb-VorqFMag0dd3uYM0G8oHbA

Barb Meier

I thought it was in the following quoted paragraph. There are clues… was the PCR test FDA approved or did it merely have a EUA? Further, is the PCR test multiplexed? “In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.”

Last edited 1 month ago by Barb Meier
Aubergine
Barb Meier

Thank you, Aubergine!! Wayback captured the page 229 times. I wonder how many times it was changed and what changed each time and date.

Aubergine

Gotta wonder.

Deplorable Patriot

A quick search turned up this:

https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/fda-rejects-pcr-test-for-approval

https://streetloc.com/page/view-news?id=1565

FDA Announced Today The CDC PCR Test for COVID-19 has Failed its full review.

FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test for COVID-19 has failed its full review. Prefers laboratories to use a method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

On May 10, 2021 we reported that Sweden Stops using PCR Tests – RNA from Viruses can be Detected for Months After Infection now the CDC joins in confirming that PCR tests are inaccurate. 

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

In other words the PCR test does not differentiate between influenza and COVID. https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f632.svg 

Wolf Moon

So the question is now whether the OTHER, REMAINING tests are FDA approved!

Aubergine

I really don’t think any of them are. Really.

kalbokalbs

Dunno the answer to Aubergines question.

But, what I distinctly recall from the March April 2020 time frame follows.

FauXi and scarf wench at pressers with Trump. FauXi and scarf wench were frequently talking about companies were allowed to roll out tests as they were developed. Streamlined process. I took THIS to be the same as NO CDC, FDA, NIH over sight. No formal process to approve the tests.

Last edited 1 month ago by kalbokalbs
Aubergine

Good info! I sort of remember this, too. I hope Gateway Pundit jumps on this and runs!

Linda

This is a chilling article (check out the chart):

Jeremy James – “Vaccines” Target Christendom for Depopulation
https://www.henrymakow.com/2021/08/james-vaccines-target-chrstendom-for-depopulation.html

para59r

And the replacement population (illegals) are by and large not taking the vax.

litenmaus

How many weeks did we suffer through the global media’s narrative that India was being hit by the Wuhan virus that was renamed the Delta Variant and we were told of the massively overwhelming death numbers coming out of the large cities?
Here are the numbers from January 3, 2020 through August 2, 2021….
(Population #’s source – www dot Worldometers)

India with a population of 1,393,568,297

Recorded: 31,856,757 Confirmed Positive CASES….
Recorded: 426,754 Coronavirus Deaths

The United States with a population of 333,130,197.

Recorded: 36,498,830 Confirmed Positive CASES…
Recorded: 629,830 Coronavirus Deaths

In a Country with ONE BILLION Fewer in population, the United States has tested 5 Million more people infected with the virus and 200,000 more coronavirus deaths than in India, the country that was supposedly going to see MILLIONS die?

The numbers don’t support the narrative….

Wolf Moon

Corrupt CDC is why.

CDC = CHICOM DISEASE COLLABORATORS

litenmaus

:0) “corrupt” is not the word that I would use.

TheseTruths

Retired US Marine Commander Dave Severance – who ordered the flag raised for this now-iconic snap on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima – has died aged 102 

comment image

comment image

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9870099/Retired-Marine-troops-plant-flag-Iwo-Jima-WWII-dies-aged-102.html

Severance commanded about 40 members of his company to plant a giant American Flag on Mount Suribachi that morning even though the battle for Iwo Jima was not over yet.

Another group was later sent up with a second flag to replace the first, with that raising snapped by AP photographer Joe Rosenthal. The Marines kept the original flag and the Navy secretary would get the second, which flew over Mount Suribachi for the rest of the battle.

During the war, Severance’s 240-man company came ashore in the 10th wave of the 70,000 Marines invading the island. They arrived on a slab of dormant volcano 660 miles south of Tokyo, where they were met by 20,000 Japanese entrenched in fortified caves and tunnels.

He and his six-officer unit out of Camp Pendleton spent 33 of the battle’s 36 days on the front lines. About 73 per cent of the company was either killed or wounded, as reported by The San Diego Union-Tribune.

He earned a Silver Star and joked that ‘it’s for surviving’ after experiencing several close calls, including a bullet that went between his legs and struck a lieutenant standing behind him.  

trumpismine

comment image

Cuppa Covfefe

The first thought that comes to mind is may GOD Bless him and keep him.
The second though is, they don’t make them like that anymore.

RIP Commander Dave Severance. May we return to the freedom, bravery, valor, integrity, faith, and guts which characterized your generation… and hold that not just in our memories, but in our values and conduct…..


TheseTruths

Just LOL. H/t Citrizen Free Press, the Dems who fled Texas are suing the governor because they are stressed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9872097/Runaway-Texas-Democrats-file-lawsuit-against-Gov-Greg-Abbott-damaging-reputations.html

The plaintiffs claim they ‘have been deprived of liberty for substantial periods of time, [and] suffered much anxiety and distress over the separation from their families. 

They also say they have suffered from ‘much discomfort and embarrassment’ because their reputations have been ‘impaired’. 

In addition to Abbott, GOP House Speaker Dade Phelan and State Rep. James White are also named as defendants in the suit. 

They were so giddy in that flight pic with no masks on, ready for their big adventure and vacation. Only a child would have been unable to predict that that would not last.

Can you spell p.e.r.s.o.n.a.l r.e.s.p.o.n.s.i.b.i.l.i.t.y?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheseTruths
ForGodandCountry

This is simply PR.

The have a legal duty to be present when the TX congress is in session. If they did not, then the Abbott could not order their arrest to return them to the representative’s chamber to perform their duty (which he has).

This is a frivolous lawsuit made by leftist snowflakes pretending to be victims.

Cuppa Covfefe

Hope they get SLAPPed upside the head (and everywhere else)…..

Gail Combs

Unfortunately it is 25 to 70 years too late.

TheseTruths

Yes, that’s why I’m laughing and talking about personal responsibility. They’re shirking their duty and trying to blame others. It’s juvenile.

para59r

They don’t need to see their families until they’ve performed their duties and as to seeing their families that is what visitation time in jail is for.

Linda

They’re getting off WAY too easy! How about treating them to the treatment of the January 6th political prisoners? Then they can talk about being victims and what they’ve been deprived of.

para59r

Yes, put them in jail and don’t give them a hearing for 7 months.

singularzoe

Good evening, q-tree friends. Just giving my two cents on pagination. I realize my situation is different and may not have much relevance, but I kind of prefer one page as I have a lot of trouble moving from one page to the next. I have to do it over and over, same, of course, if I want to go back to page one to finish reading or find new comments. The other thing I wish I could access is the yellow, as I don’t know which are new comments, so I end up rereading a lot looking for something I haven’t read yet, meaning newer comments.

ForGodandCountry

Zoe, thanks for saying something.

I mentioned last night that I wasn’t crazy about the new “load more comments” feature but I will gladly live with it if that helps you out, and I would wager everyone else here would as well.

If I had the $$ this website would have a highly paid, full time team of IT programmers and experts to maintain and manage it, and I would direct them to create and manage features which would direct them to make things as easy for you as possible.

Again, thanks for saying something.

singularzoe

ForGodandCountry, you are so kind to say that, but I think many are prefering the pagination, and it’s not such a problem I can’t live with it, and it does have advantages, but I want you to know how much you are appreciating around this place. Also CTHULU and Wolf and many others have tried to help me with tech issues. So glad you came back after you were away for a while. Maybe some of us will meet someday at some event to celebrate our great country. See you around somewhere on pages 1 or 2 or 3 or 4. Lol.

Sadie Slays

Thirded. I prefer pagination. Pages are a hundred times easier to navigate.

singularzoe

If I can get through most of the first page as I go to it from my email, it’s not so bad, but if the email shows me the second page and I have only read half of the first page and want to get back to it, it’s hard but not the end of the world, and sometimes I can make it work if I keep trying. I think the vote is to go back to pagination, and I’m fine with that. Just saying. So wish I could see that hellow hilighter. Just doing a little whining. Lol.

singularzoe

I can live with going back to pagination. I think people want that, and I can understand. Just want to see that yellow hilighter. There just isn’t a way to make it easy for me to find new comments unless they are in reply to my own comments. Oh, well. Just whining.

Gudthots

The single page seems to work fine.
BUT the whole site is still acting wonky following the big shift a while back

And yet we have a lot to talk about.
date – # comments … 8/1 396, 8/2 867, 8/3 394, 8/4 770, 8/5 674, 8/6 658, 8/7 317 (and counting)

trumpismine

How to Speak Biden-ese: A Hilarious Lesson-
https://rumble.com/c/DineshDsouza

Cuppa Covfefe

The Bidenese Libertine Army…

RF121

Good article.

trumpismine

comment image

gil00

CA GOP didnt endirse anyone, bc they wanted to endorse Kevin Faulconer, former san diego mayor and avid anti Trumper. Yeah THEY wanted HIM. But they had no way to hide it. Im shocked Larry Elder is out front but if he’s the front guy then I dont want the vote split.

Make L.A Great Again 🇺🇸 – RECALLGAVIN2020.COM (@lalovestrump) Tweeted:
Good … I was hoping they would not endorse a candidate

https://t.co/Vz6HnN2yGW

RF121

Won’t matter. We know who counts the votes.

RF121

Excellent video on mass psychosis.

Cuppa Covfefe

Sometimes I wonder if this COVIDiocy is the deception at the end of the age…

II Thessalonians 2:10-12:

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

ForGodandCountry

You are not alone. Not hardly.

Revelations 13:16-17

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Linda

Yes, this vaccine crap is grooming people to receive the Mark of the Beast.

cthulhu

What makes you think the Mark of the Beast would come in boxes saying, “Mark of the Beast, quantity 144 single-serve doses”?

Why wouldn’t it say “Pfizer-Biontech” on the box?

Wolf Moon

Yup. This could be it.

TheseTruths

A perfect description of what’s happening. The more people fall for the propaganda, the more fearful they become and the less they care about principles and individual rights. I guess enough time has passed since WWII that people no longer understand about the mass deception/psychosis that occurred then.

Cuppa Covfefe

I’ve been saying a few times about the need to pray, intensely and intently in these times where the demons and the DEMONRATS are doing their best to ruin our world and GOD’S Creation. Daniel faced many of the same issues, including being forced to do things and worship things which GOD had forbidden.

Here’s a spiritual that describes that, and Daniel’s response. Some great Bluegrass from Ricky Skaggs and Patty Loveless. Well worth listening to and reflecting upon…

P.S. Catch the Rebel Yell at 0:58, and their great response to it 🙂
P.P.S. The cadence at the end is really good, too…
P.P.P.S. OK, I know, cadences are usually at the end, but they did a really good job here…

Last edited 1 month ago by Cuppa Covfefe
Wolf Moon

Awesome video! Patty Loveless is one of my faves. Never knew what happened to her. Think I’m listening to the wrong stations.

barkerjim

Something is still wonky. I scroll through the entire post, turn all the yellows to white? and then later click the orange ball which has slowly incrementing. Then scroll again. Oddly most of the original yellows have returned to yellow, with a few that are new. I have a touch screen and my right thumb is going to be awesome.

cthulhu

Maybe try Wisk?

Wolf Moon

Thanks! I’m watching all this and waiting to ask the question – stay with “LOAD MORE” or return to pagination. Soon. Opinions rendered prior to that time will be noted, but if changed, no problem.

Wolf Moon

Yes! I’ve seen that, too.

I believe that it’s due to client data (the wiggly bars) not making it back to the server.

Gudthots

I’m good with a single page per post.
Did you see the stats I posted earlier on # of comments per open?

Wolf Moon

I saw, but did not stop to analyze yet. If you have the BLUF, it could save me time!

Gudthots

date – # comments …
8/1 396,
8/2 867,
8/3 394,
8/4 770,
8/5 674, 
8/6 658,
8/7 492

Gudthots

Longer than that.

Aubergine

If you saw what Zoe wrote, and For God & Country’s response, I think your mind might be made up.

Wolf Moon

Thanks – I had not seen that. Helpful to see that two more people are good with it.

Based on all the responses, I’m leaning toward staying with single-page as the lesser of two minor evils, but If we stay there, it will be for the good of the site.

Part of Wolf’s security model is absolute resistance to sympathetic minorities whose needs violate the security model. I’ve ignored Zoe’s needs on other things that conflicted with the mission, and I will always make decisions based on the needs of all of us.

But given all that, I was trained for this job as a kid, and I know all about the value of a blind team member.

comment image
comment image

Aubergine

I’m glad you are a hardass. We need that here. Usually I am, too. I had a weak moment. Yesterday was a long day.

TheseTruths

I don’t get a “load more” option. All the new posts are loading and the newest ones that are not replies to others appear at the top. I didn’t know what people meant by “load more” until I went to yesterday’s daily to look something up, and then I saw it.

Wolf Moon

Yeah, it’s interesting how that works!

ForGodandCountry

Reposting this.

Btw, this guy is running for Gov. of Texas.

And I have a new candidate to support.

.

TheseTruths

He is excellent. He speaks at a fast rate, which shows that he speaks from the heart and knows his subject matter.
A few of his points:

  • Quarantines are for the sick, not the healthy.
  • Lockdowns are what penitentiaries do to prisoners.
  • Social distancing is antisocial, and it’s about control.
  • “Safer at home” is isolation and it fosters depression, anxiety, and Howard Hughes syndrome.
gil00

Kiddo had rsv pretty bad. I believe others here had kids with it.
Just be aware, for your grandkids. It dies have a test to diagnose.

Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) Tweeted:
So we’re all clear: when you read those worrying stories about a respiratory virus filling children’s hospitals, you are reading about RSV. And the likely reason this is happening now is because lockdowns prevented normal exposure, so 18 months of cases are happening at once: https://t.co/c1acIYeGCT

kalbokalbs

Children wearing masks likely contributed to this. Or so MeThinks.

gil00

There is so much garbage 9n those masks. I dont know where mine got it, wasnt in preschool yet but trip to the er and some serious meds. Luckily he responded to extra doses or they would’ve flown him to kids hospital.
Kids sneezes, coughs, and boogers are copious. Keeping it on you hands and faces is bad news.

Wolf Moon

So THAT’S why they want to deploy a CLOT SHOT for that one, too. To get the kids.

gil00

Yep. Wolf, i think they will try to force this on kids at in person school….like sex ed, abortions, trans bs….

kalbokalbs

Paging our WA and OR Peeps.

Wondering what Covid lunacy I may encounter next week, as I trek to Glacier National Park.
 
Oregon – Eastern side US 95N & I-84N.
Washington – Eastern side US 395N & I-90E. Overnight in Kennewick. Transit Spokane, not stop.
 
Montana – Normal, I am guessing. Traveling through Glacier, then I-15S
Idaho – A nothing burger short of liberal enclaves like Twin Falls.
Nevada – Rural Nevada blowing Sisolak off.  

RF121

Did not wear a mask anywhere in Spokane, ID (Twin Falls), MT. Just don’t read any signs. No one enforcing anyway.

kalbokalbs

Thanks. Good to read. Yea, wherever signs may be up, I ignore. If they ever insist, I leave.

cthulhu

Don’t run low on fuel.

kalbokalbs

So true. A logistics guy here. Pretty much know where I am fueling with plenty left in the tank each time. Hotels are locked on. Weather in 15 day forecasts looking good. Always carry a reasonable amount of what if stuff, for when Murphy shows up.

Last edited 1 month ago by kalbokalbs
Aubergine

My son asked me “since when do Americans read signs?”

Linda

You’ll be on the conservative side of the mountains of OR and WA, so that means more common sense will prevail. However, I live in Salem, and hardly anyone is still wearing masks here. I haven’t heard if our idiot governor has reinstated masks and I’m not going to look because I don’t care. I won’t be wearing one.

kalbokalbs

Perfect. Thanks.

cthulhu

Newsom is too scared of his recall to call for a statewide mask re-mandate, but the local county health officials are (I know it strains belief) even bigger idiots.

And it’s coming through while my car is being repaired (I never used a mask with the mechanic, but it meant that I couldn’t easily just move to another store), my refrigerator is going into overload again, and the fiancee is acting up….

Aubergine

Montana is about how it has been all along. One or two stores here in my small town are back to masking employees, but very few customers are wearing them. Avoid Missoula, if possible, they are liberal lunatics there.

gil00

You sneezed. Congrats you have covid.

Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) Tweeted:
‘The Apocalypse shall come as a case of the sniffles’
https://t.co/mBam3BfWfs

Barb Meier

I just checked in on Selwyn Duke. “Longtime Physician on COVID Care: “When Did the World Become Insane?” https://selwynduke.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb14318834026bdee68e0c200c-120wi
By Selwyn Duke He’s fed up and, he says, must finally speak out beyond his private circles even if it means being canceled. What bothers Dr. Matt Bettag, a physician with 24-years experience, so much is that he has “never before seen the medical establishment just stop thinking,” as he puts it. “Insanity is the new rule,” he continues, “and common sense cannot even be discussed.”
Bettag, who has been a practicing ENT for 19 years of his career, is, of course, referring to COVID craziness, to schizoid prescriptions that mutate faster than a virus ever could.”

https://thenewamerican.com/longtime-physician-on-covid-care-when-did-the-world-become-insane/

Last edited 1 month ago by Barb Meier
Wolf Moon

I think more and more people are seeing the insanity.

Barb Meier

I agree, I think more people are seeing it. Hopefully, that helps us all.

Gail Combs

Wolfie, Q Treepers,

Do you realize the the Covid Genocide Weapon is BACKFIRING!

Who is taking the Jab?
Democrat brainwashed Sheeple.

WHO IS REFUSING THE JAB?
Conservative Rebels

As long as Conservatives hold their ground and yell NO GENOCIDE JAB! they will get increasingly frantic.

Meanwhile the whole mess is unraveling as more and more people are starting to see the truth about the Genocide Jab.

RF121

..

20210807_185907.jpg
Wolf Moon

Agreed. The Democrats are going literally insane. They are upending society.

HOLD THE LINE.

STAND YOUR GROUND.

THIS IS THE HILL.

Deplorable Patriot

In any dictatorship takeover, the despots kill their own followers first.

When all is revealed, they are going to panic like we’ve never seen before.

gil00

A tranny.
Who worked for Piglosi AND Hillary.
Ttried to lure a 14 y/o for sex.

TheseTruths

Not holding my breath until those two denounce his actions. 😮‍💨

gil00

They wont.

Wolf Moon

Linda

comment image

Wolf Moon

Love this lady!!!

RF121

So for forty years we are fed a diet that has made 70% of us over fat. 30% obese. Then they infect us with a virus that targets the obese. And then they wonder why we don’t trust them.

Wolf Moon

comment image

[…] Part XIII – Rutherford On A Roll […]