Isha Koppikar was born on 19 September 1976 In Mahim, Mumbai, India. She is an Indian entertainer, a model who has shown up in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Marathi films. Isha is most famous for playing heroes in films that gather more basic thankfulness than significant film industry figures. his Education Qualifications Graduate in Life Sciences and Debut Film Name Kaadhal Kavithai ... Isha Koppikar had started dating businessman, Timmy Narang in June 2008 and within one year, the lovebirds had tied the knot on November 29, 2009. The lovely couple had gotten blessed with a beautiful angel in 2014, whom they had lovingly named Rianna. Since then their life has been revolving around their little cotton ball. Who is Isha Koppikar Dating ? Isha Koppikar got married with Timmy Narang. They got married on 2009. We don’t have any information about their child. We have no records of past relationships for Isha Koppikar. What is Isha Koppikar Net Worth ? Isha Koppikar is an Indian actress and model who has appeared in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and ... Isha Koppikar was born on Sunday, 19 September 1976 (age 43 years; as in 2019), in Mahim, Mumbai. Her zodiac sign is Virgo. ... Isha met Timmy in a gym in 2005, and after three years of friendship, they started dating each other from 21 June 2008. The couple got married on 29 November 2009, and in July 2014, the couple was blessed with a baby ... Eesha Koppikar’s Boyfriend. Eesha Koppikar is single. She is not dating anyone currently. Eesha had at least 1 relationship in the past. Eesha Koppikar has not been previously engaged. In November 2009, she married hotelier Timmy Narang. According to our records, she has no children. Who is she dating right now? According to our records, Isha Koppikar is possibly single. Relationships. We have no records of past relationships for Isha Koppikar.. About. Isha Koppikar is a 43 year old Indian Actress born on 19th September, 1976 in Mumbai, India. Her zodiac sign is Virgo Eesha Koppikar Net Worth, Age, Height, Weight, Body Measurements, Dating, Marriage, Relationship Stats, Family, Career, Wiki. Scroll below and check our most recent updates about about Eesha Koppikar's Biography, Salary, Estimated Net worth, Expenses, Income Reports & Financial Breakdown 2020! She is one of the successful Model. Isha Koppikar is an Indian performing artist and model who has shown up in Tamil, Telugu, Hindi, Kannada, and Marathi movies. Her most widely praised exhibitions were in the movies Girlfriend (2004), D (2006), Darling (2007) and Shabri (2011). The reason behind Inder and Sonal's marriage falling apart, said Sonal, was actor Isha Koppikar. Sonal alleged that Inder could not forget Isha even after she had filed for a divorce from him. Sonal got married again after parting ways with Inder, as did he. In an interview with Spotboye, Sonal revealed the reason behind her marriage falling apart. Recommended Read: 15 Super Glamorous Wives And Girlfriends Of Star Indian Cricketers Whether you feel the rush instantly or after years, love is a beautiful feeling. The love story of Isha Koppikar and Timmy Narang is full of surprises and sparks and is all about what we just talked about.
Further research concludes this was a stupid theory, eg, a possible method of disposing of friable Asbestos waste, which nobody wants "in their backyard", and of which, 10+ million lbs must be disposed of annually in the USA. Combustion chambers in jet turbines operate up to 2000C/3632F, and Asbestos decomposes into silicate glass at 1250C/2282F, which might make one wonder why it is not disposed of that way, instead of poisoning the environment and air. This post concludes with some data on fibers for anyone concerned with this Chemtrail crap (drives me crazy at times) and/or Asbestos.
The physical properties of asbestos fibers are important in determining toxicity because fiber size and fiber shape affect the ability of asbestos to enter the body and damage cells within the lungs. Fiber dimension determines the likelihood that a fiber will enter the body. Fibers with lengths less than 40um and diameters of less than 0.5 um can be inhaled into the lungs (Koppikar, 2004). Some argue that fibers with lengths less than 5um pose no threat to humans because they are small enough to be exhaled back out into the ambient air or expelled to the esophagus and ingested, but this claim has been disputed (Troast, 2004; Koppikar, 2004). This is an important point to reconcile because as much 85 to 95 percent of asbestos fibers are shorter than 5um and not counted according to some microscopy protocols (Koppikar, 2004).
In a study discussed by Besson et al. (1999), 70 percent of analyzed chrysotile and 50 percent of analyzed amosite were determined to be shorter than 5um. Of those fibers that are in the range of respiration, longer fibers are more damaging because they are more likely to deposit in the lungs (Lippmann, 2000) and it is more difficult for phagocytes to phagocytize them, meaning they have greater durability in the lungs than shorter fibers (Harper and Bartolucci, 2003; Koppikar, 2004; Mossman, 1990). Also, the process of phagocytizing asbestos can damage the phagocytes themselves and result in the release of chemicals that can damage lung tissue (Lippmann, 2000). It is also more difficult to phagocytize fibers with greater aspect ratios than fibers with smaller aspect ratios (i.e., fibers that are shorter and thicker) (Koppikar, 2004; Mossman, et al., 1990). This has lead some researchers, including Stanton, to declare that fibers that are long and thin are the most damaging (Lippmann, 2000; Mossman, et al., 1990). In fact, Stanton found long fibers to be the cause of mesothelioma, regardless of mineral composition, "after direct intrapleural or intraperitoneal injection into rodents" (Lippmann, 2000, p. 81). Fibers with smaller diameters (i.e., less than 0.1 um) have been found to be more carcinogenic and more likely to cause mesothelioma (Egilman et al., 2003). According to Kohyama and Kurimori, asbestos fibers with diameters thinner than 0.25um and lengths greater than 8um display the greatest carcinogenicity (Besson, et al., 1999). Furthermore, according to Besson, et al. (1999), the carcinogenicity of asbestos fibers increases with increasing fiber length and decreasing diameter.
Fiber shape is another physical property that is an important indicator of toxicity because it helps determine how easily a fiber will enter the lungs and how easily it will be broken down by phagocytes. "Rod like" amphibole fibers are straight, long, and thin (i.e., they have a high aspect ratio), and can more easily enter the body and penetrate deep into the lungs than curved chrysotile fibers, which have a greater likelihood of being intercepted and expelled before reaching the depths of the lungs. It is also more difficult for phagocytes to breakdown amphibole fibers because of their shape (and because of other properties) than chrysotile fibers (Mossman, et al., 1990; Koppikar, 2004).
This post is speculation (since there are no other methods available). Many people claim chemtrails are Barium and Aluminum compounds based on sketchy reports. Based on contact with over 2 dozen GC/MS / forensic laboratories, it is doubtful that any valid analysis has been conducted, since all 2+ dozen laboratories refused to conduct analysis. If you want to see the chemtrail fibers, use a flashlight beam outdoors at night; or just take a fresh Ziploc baggie, and open it in a glass/jar, and set it out in the rain for 12 hours. Then bring it inside, and hold it up to a light.
The reason for theorizing Asbestos may be "chemtrails" is:
- It would easily pass thru a jet engine unchanged simply by mixing the fibers with the fuel; it would not burn.
- It is able to stay suspended in air for 1000s of kilometers, and many, many days. It is also not soluble in rain, although moisture can condense on it in the upper atmosphere and form rain.
- It is virtually undetectable since it can't be dissolved or vaporized for testing, and even standard methods of detection are very difficult and inaccurate (phase contrast microscopy, transmission electron microscopy).
- Nobody could prove if it was environmental/natural or dispersed from high altitudes.
- The flashlight-beam-at-night test demonstrates fibrous materials that float in the air, not Barium/Aluminum compounds (salts/oxides/powders).
- Fibers can be Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, or Plastic. Animal & Vegetable wouldn't seem appropriate because of the difficulty of creating nano/micro sizes, and like Plastic, would require a "cool" dispertion apparatus. Mineral would be the easiest to pre-load and disperse because it's easiest to pulverize into nano/micro sizes and disperse via the turbine; and the only choices would be Asbestos, Carbon, Glass, Metal, and Rock. The dust doesn't appear black (carbon) or metallic (heavy), and fiberglass/rockwool wouldn't be as reflective in a lightbeam as the chemtrail particles are.
- They are said to glow under Blacklight by at least one public radio host that was shocked by this demonstration, and recommended it as a test for the public with an appearance of honesty and sincerity (if this is not a true fact, then this argument is faulty; supposedly, one only needs to test the air at night with a Blacklight, and/or check their clothing before/after spending time outside at night with a Blacklight), so that would leave only Asbestos (similar to white cotton) and Plastic (if white like cotton).
- If they indeed are emitted via the engines/turbines, then Asbestos would be the only realistic fiber to use. They could be Plastic, but that would require some other kind of dispersing mechanism; nothing hot.
Don't the elite breathe the same air too?
Nobody wants to breathe any kind of fiber, they're all bad for lungs. Do the elite breathe the same air too? Who knows? Do you see them outside for long periods of time? The toxicity of Asbestos is directly related to the amount you inhale. If you do see the elite enjoying the outdoors for lengthy periods, do you know that area has been sprayed recently? Actually, that's a stupid question, because we've been drowning in this crap 24/365 for years, almost decades. I doubt anyone sees the elite outdoors for lengthy periods of time. They likely spend most of their time in the southern hemisphere or indoors with the high quality sub-micron HEPA filtered air or whatever.
The following info comes from a CDC report [ http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp61-c6.pdf
]. Comments are in brackets.
Small fibers may remain suspended for long periods of time. The general population is exposed to low levels of asbestos primarily by inhalation [30% of which is excreted by the intestinal tract]
. The exposure of the general population (nonoccupational exposure) to asbestos in both indoor and outdoor air is extremely low. The use of asbestos in most products has been phased out.
According to the TRI (Toxic Release Inventory), in 1999, total releases of asbestos (friable) [the deadly kind]
to the environment (including air, water, and soil) from 87 facilities that reported producing, processing, or using asbestos were 13.6 million pounds (TRI99 2001). The TRI data should be used with caution because only certain types of facilities are required to report. This is not an exhaustive list.
According to TRI, in 1999, the estimated release of asbestos (friable) was 3,432 pounds to the air from 87 facilities that reported producing, processing, or using asbestos. This accounted for about 0.02% of total environmental releases (TRI99 2001) [and the other 99.98% ?]
. While disposal of waste asbestos to landfills was a common practice in the past, current regulations restrict this practice [not going there]
. In 1999, the disposal of 13,573,783 pounds of asbestos (friable) on land was reported by 87 U.S. facilities that produced, processed, or used asbestos (TRI99 2001) [no method provided]
. An additional 4,843,383 pounds of asbestos were transferred to other locations, including publically owned treatment works (POTWs), in 1999, and it is likely that most of this was ultimately released on land [no method provided]
. No asbestos was injected underground in 1999 [not going there]
. However, some fibers are sufficiently small that they can remain in suspension in both air and water and be transported long distances [and how does this relate to disposing of 13.6 million lbs of asbestos?]
. For example, fibers with aerodynamic diameters of 0.1-1 µm can be carried thousands of kilometers in air (Jaenicke 1980). According to TRI, in 1999, no asbestos (friable) was released to water from 87 facilities that reported producing, processing, or using asbestos (TRI99 2001) [not going there]
SO WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO???
- 13.6 million lbs of Asbestos waste was generated by reporting facilities.
- 0.02% was lost into the air during production/processing/use.
- None of it went into landfills.
- It went on the land somehow, somewhere.
- It didn't go into the land.
- It didn't go into the water.
- They state that it can be dispersed in the atmosphere for 1000s of km in the when the particulate size is 1 micron or less. In effect, stating that pulverized asbestos into the micron range and less that is put into the atmosphere will never be detected.
- They state that human exposure has been measured to be "extremely low", but then other examinations find millions of fibers in lung tissue (2002) in the general population, which doesn't sound "extremely low" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#cite_ref-74 ].
The fact is many 1000s (or 10000+) of tons of deadly friable Asbestos are disposed of "on land" in the USA each year, and it isn't clear where or how. And the methods are not even tracked. It seems a little careless, since wind can carry it up into the atmosphere when the soil is dry, chemtrails or no chemtrails [ http://www.google.com/search?q=asbestos+lungs+grams
Summary of Published Measurements of Asbestos Levels in Ambient Air, May 20, 2013
Asbestos in air is measured by using a pump to draw air through a filter and examining the filter under a microscope to estimate the number of asbestos fibers on the filter. In the early days of asbestos analysis (date?), concentration was often reported on as ng/m3; however, reporting concentrations as fibers per unit volume f/cc, f/mL soon became standard. Concentrations reported as total asbestos are higher than fibers longer than 5 um, since fibers > 5 um typically only constitute a fraction of the total. Data from early studies that present results as ng/m3, or as f/cc estimated by calculation from such measurements (e.g., Selikoff et al. 1972, NRC 1984), have not been tabulated.
In the "early days", whenever that was, apparently pre-1990s, ambient asbestos levels were measured as the total weight/volume of air (ng/m3), but since then, near the beginning of chemtrails, the levels are only measured by counting fibers greater than 5um in length per cc/ml, even though they can count down to 0.5um lengths. So, theoretically, you can have air full of asbestos, but as long as the fibers are less than 5 micrometers, air quality standards today will report "zero asbestos". Strange, because it's a faulty assumption to think that what is greater than 5um will always be in the same ratio to what is less than 5um, and thus, gives no real indication of the total asbestos burden. Furthermore, the EPA refuses to use any of the "asbestos by total weight/cubic meter" records from the pre-1990s days to compare with data today. Also strange, because any change in the natural background levels and particle size ratios could demonstrate incongruencies between previous "ng/m3 -> f/cc" and current "f/cc -> ng/m3" conversions, indicating new forms of asbestos in the atmosphere. The human eye can see a 30um dot in daylight, and 99% of the dust you can see reflecting in a flashlight beam at night is less than 5um (there's the big floating particles in the micron range, and if your light is strong enough, there's a mist in the nanosize range with most of the content), less than any asbestos air quality measurement by EPA standards will measure. And they admit that fibers greater than 5um in length are only a small fraction of total asbestos fibers.
FWIW (NOT saying it is Asbestos; this is the presentation of "facts", everybody is responsible for their own thinking and understandings).
Isha Koppikar's Dating History Who is Isha Koppikar Dating? Who is Isha Koppikar's Boyfriend? Who is Isha Koppikar's Husband? What Is Isha Koppikar's Dating Timeline? Who are the boys Isha ... Who is Mahima Chaudhary dating - Kudiyon Ka Hai Zamaana - Duration: 3:47. Eros Now 241,884 views. 3:47. Pooja Hegde on dating Rohan Mehra, Prabhas 20, Akshay, Salman, Kabhi Eid Kabhi Diwali & Aruvaa ... Isha Koppikar's SHOCKING Untold Story: Fighting the casting couch, rejections, nepotism ... Riya Sen Hot School Girl (Waiting For Sex) Indian Video basically contains sex hot; school sex; indian hot sex; sex India; intro video +18 anni; after school... Inder Kumar’s Ex-girlfriend Isha Koppikhar Breaks Silence on his Death. Isha Koppikar was dating Inder Kumar for a long time. She got emotional an shocked after hearing the news of his sudden death. Isha Koppikar's SHOCKING Untold Story: Fighting the casting couch, rejections, nepotism & cheating - Duration: 12:12. ... Vicky CONFIRMS dating Katrina? Karan Johar, ... Once upon a time in Mumbai Sultan starts dating Rehana. ... Best Scenes Of Isha Koppikar Super Hit Bollywood Movie Sonu Sood Ek Vivah Aisa Bhi - Duration: 15:12. This morning, we met with the sad news of the demise of actor Inder Kumar. He suffered a heart attack last night at his residence in Mumbai. He had been a pa... Interested in Lovecraftian Fiction aka Cosmic Horror? The top 8 scariest films! Get 2 FREE Months of Classes:https://skillshare.eqcm.net/zD6Wm My PATREON h... We're making a Lineup game! Sign up for updates: http://bit.ly/lineup-game Sponsor this series: http://www.cut.com/sponsorship SUBSCRIBE: http://bit.ly/CutSu...