PDA

View Full Version : Dear Bill Ryan, Would you PLEASE watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures ? :-)



Kimberley
24th August 2013, 22:55
Dear Bill and All,

There are several forum members and I that think that whistle blower Galen Winsor's nuclear scar scam information is the most important topic that we have come across in all of our many years of searching for the truth.


As I have stated several time now in several nuclear radiation threads ... my "beliefs" about nuclear energy reactors flipped 180 degrees after I listened to the 3 Galen Winsor lectures (posted below) and then ( for over a year) we compiled a lot of supporting evidence in favor of Galen's claims on the Galen Winsor thread.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-

Yes nuclear bombs kill and disfigure no doubts about that.

Since we know we have been lied to about so very many things in the name of greed and control ... and we know that instilling fear is the best method of control...

And we know that the cost/money behind the production of all types of energy is one of the top forms of keeping humans enslaved...

It is important that people listen to Galen Winsor's claims that nuclear energy is actually a very inexpensive (and mostly safe) form of energy... so it makes perfect sense that lying to the masses that it is dangerous and something to fear and needs to have high costs behind it to keep it regulated were added into the mix.

And the fear part helps keep us in control...

All I am asking one and all and especially Bill Ryan is to please take the time to listen to the three Galen Winsor lectures (the first 2 would be fine too) and then report what you think after listening to him!!! Please!!! Thank you!!!

Please do not post one thing after the other that supports the danger and harm that is claimed to have been caused by nuclear reactor accidents...

I know all of that..I have seen the pictures for most of my life...I lived 80 miles from three mile island nuclear plant..I saw the (propaganda) film "China Syndrome" film that was released on March 16, 1979, 12 days before the Three Mile Island nuclear "accident" in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. And I experienced the FEAR!! Big time!!!

Galen was consulted by the "China Syndrome" film makers and told them that the possibility of a melt down was hog wash...And I could go on...

So I am asking you to please listen to what Galen had to say...and comment on that..not asking you to prove him wrong..just wanting you to give him a listen and then comment on what you heard him say...thanks!

Below are the three lectures ...I suggest listening/viewing them in the order listed. The first 2 listed are a must IMO and the third is highly recommended.

The second is an audio file that is Galen's description of what happened at Chernobyl...it does take a few minutes to load so please be patient and wait for it to load...

**************************************

In the show more under this video are a lot of very interesting links...Such as this one
The Effects of Low-dose Radiation
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6932

ejCQrOTE-XA


*****************************

This is an audio of Galen talking about what happened at Chernobyl

http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/Williams1986.htm

scroll down the page 3rd from the bottom till you see

8618a Report On Chernobyl by Galen Winsor (05/11/86)

*****************************

x42qi7Fz1L0

****************************

Thank you ALL!!! Much love, peace, and fun!!! :grouphug:

NancyV
24th August 2013, 23:21
I'm pretty sure my husband would agree that radiation, or maybe just some radiation, is not as deadly as we have been lead to believe, unless he's a rare individual that it doesn't affect. He was stationed close to three mile island when the accident happened and was with some of the first guys who went in to secure it. They were there for several days. He never experienced ill effects from the radiation. Also his father was in the navy after WWII when they were doing nuclear testing around the Bikini Atoll. He actually flew through several mushroom clouds resulting from the testing. He is alive and well in his late 80's today.

In the mid 60's when my husband lived in Japan for a year he went to the museums with Hiroshima and Nagasaki artifacts, photos and stories. He was amazed at how many people who escaped the blast, but were very close and should have died from radiation, did not die or get sick.

I've watched a few videos about how radiation isn't as lethal as they say but I'll watch the ones you posted. I have an open mind about it and I tend to not believe anything 100%. Too many people lie or are deluded or have some kind of ulterior motives for me to trust anything 100%. Thanks for posting the videos!

Kimberley
24th August 2013, 23:27
Thank you for sharing that Nancy!!!! Much love to us all!!! :grouphug:

Kimberley
25th August 2013, 00:55
I would be remiss if I did not add this interview to this thread....

Low dose radiation can heal you and save the honey bees - Radiation Hormesis- Jay Gutierrez


nxCLpA3JDQQ

Love, Peace, and Fun to us all!! :grouphug:

ljwheat
25th August 2013, 01:15
After listening to Galen Winsor and lifting the deep set fears of radiation I’ve held all my life 64 + years and finding Jay Gutierrez and his work with natural radiation really laid all my remaining fears to rest. Now using low dose Hormesis for over 6mo. With no ill effects. And only good results on anything I apply it to.

So getting Bills Take on this, a seasoned well versed interviewer, bar none, will be very interesting indeed. Good thread Kimberley its time we all take a good hard look at what the controllers of this world want to hide from us all.

NancyV
25th August 2013, 01:19
I finished the first hour and a half and just love Galen Winsor. He definitely comes across as telling the truth about his experiences. He also has a great sense of humor!

What an AMAZING scam they've been engaged in here!!!!!!!! If what he says is true, and I would bet that it mostly is, it's just one of the many scams being perpetrated upon us to suck money/energy and to exert more and more control over us. Wow, great info. I didn't realize how huge this is, if true.

Apparently he died in 2008 at the age of 82, so I guess all the supposedly lethal radioactive material he handled, swam in and even DRANK didn't kill him at an early age.
:)

Carmody
25th August 2013, 01:34
It appears to be an issue of dosage level, over time, combined with recovery and correction. how well the given immune system is working, regarding it's 'knowing' of a foreign DNA structure, or a modified DNA structure.

Kimberley
25th August 2013, 01:35
Thank you again Nancy! Yes my father died at age 58 and I just had a friend die a few days ago at age 68...age 82 is very honorable isn't it? :-)

Here below is a 15 minute video that is worthy of adding also...and I do want to add that even though they say thyroid cancer increased after the incident...was a country/town of limited financial means really documenting the incidence of thyroid cancer before the Chernobyl incident?????? I suspect NOT!!!

Fukushima and Chernobyl: Myth versus Reality

qaEKfPlCL_4

xoxo

ghostrider
25th August 2013, 02:37
I love how the scientist say this is dangerous to us and this guy just eats it while speaking of how dangerous we are told it is ... that part got me ...

Operator
25th August 2013, 04:26
Hmm, I am not so convinced about it being harmless ....

Have a look at this website for example:
http://www.chernobyl-international.com/about-chernobyl/facts-and-figures

I remember children (Chernobyl victims) coming to the Netherlands for vacation. This was not a myth at all.

And what about the malformed children born in areas affected by depleted Uranium? And also the vets who
used this ammunition suffering from radiation illness.

Kimberley
25th August 2013, 04:34
Hmm, I am not so convinced about it being harmless ....

Have a look at this website for example:
http://www.chernobyl-international.com/about-chernobyl/facts-and-figures

I remember children (Chernobyl victims) coming to the Netherlands for vacation. This was not a myth at all.

And what about the malformed children born in areas affected by depleted Uranium? And also the vets who
used this ammunition suffering from radiation illness.

Hi...I asked that you watch the Galen lectures and to NOT try to prove or dis prove...I do NOT need examples...I have seen them... I have FEARED them!!! NO longer do I FEAR Nuclear Energy.

Please report again Operator after you have listened to the Galen lectures!!! Thank you!!! :hug:

Operator
25th August 2013, 04:39
Please report again Operator after you have listened to the Galen lectures!!! Thank you!!! :hug:

I've seen Galen before ... and I am not convinced by any of his lectures. I don't trust this guy for a minute.

Kimberley
25th August 2013, 04:57
Thank you Operator! I value your opinion!!! :hug:

You are on top of the game since you watched Galen and then have your view point!... This is a perfect example of how creating peace is ALL about agreeing to disagree... fffheeeehhhuuuwwww (wiping brow)...

Not here trying to convince anyone of anything....just a messenger! :-) And loving it all!!! :-)






Please report again Operator after you have listened to the Galen lectures!!! Thank you!!! :hug:

I've seen Galen before ... and I am not convinced by any of his lectures. I don't trust this guy for a minute.

SKIBADABOMSKI
25th August 2013, 05:46
Of course a massive part of my reaction to these findings was relief as I live very close to Fukushima. This subject is so important yet so ignored by Avalon that it astounds me.

The chances of learning and studying the knowledge of something that terrifies you should be encouraging and encouraged.
With just the potential of eliminating fears surrounding this toxic topic alone, it should be gratified and questioned and most of all everyone should get together and spend some time putting pieces together.

I guess it's easy to just be anti-nuclear and just know deep down that it's a ****ty way to make energy. But like it or lump it we live these times and lets not forget the global warming scam they did. That was genius and they could just sit back and let the nay sayers do all the work for them.
Who's to say that this isn't the case here.. it's got perfect ground for it because it's in the (no go zone) (too complicated zone) (needs scientific proof zone) (can't be assed but it should be stopped zone) (end of the day we can't do anything about it zone) (we are all going to die from this zone)
Plus we are in times when many simply don't believe anything they read and think everyone that posts something is an insider to something trying to trick us. Or have nothing better to do than mix phantasy with fact.

I have been studying the way everything works in a very blocky kind of way and have been watching the royal bloodlines and how Japan holds the oldest royal bloodline and is a crime free country and has no armies and has money. The Japanese economy will never collapse as people may think. Trust me it will never happen. Japanese don't panic. Fearless in comparison to many.

Japanese top the charts on the worldwide longevity statistics.. followed by Swiss (yes that country that allows people to have guns)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Sorry I'm drifting off subject.. babbling again.

So can we have some respect on this topic or is Kimberly just banging her head against a brick wall and I'm sure TargeT has had enough but he is perfect if you have quick questions as he has most of the nitty gritty information already installed in his memory. We need more members like that.

Yes I know one video won't change years of panic but it's worth contemplating and researching. We are all effected by this either way. If it's a real threat or a scam.

I don't watch TV anymore but I have that Africa 3CD downloaded and I watch that to restore my faith in this amazing and wonderful planet we live on. I travel a lot and see wonderful places full of happy people and enjoy flying and sit at the window always in awe at how vast and zoological this planet is.

This is Nuclear Power. A dumb ass way to boil water. So why? What are the real dangers? What are they really doing? What is the real agenda behind the reasoning to use nuclear power as a source of energy?

I have a bunch of Qs.. I will add some later but just wanted to say my piece on this.

So yes I agree.. come on Bill. We need the Bossplayer to help derail the last train to transcentral.

Ski-

Kimberley
25th August 2013, 08:00
Thank you SKIBADABOMSKI!!!

I do not have any answers...only a lot of questions! And would like Bills take on all of this...I have expressed my take.

Thank you all!!!

meat suit
25th August 2013, 08:13
Please report again Operator after you have listened to the Galen lectures!!! Thank you!!! :hug:

I've seen Galen before ... and I am not convinced by any of his lectures. I don't trust this guy for a minute.

good point, and even if Galen actually thinks he tells the truth, it still may be wildly inaccurate ..... he still may be right...I have no way of knowing personally....

Bill Ryan
25th August 2013, 11:23
--------

Hi, Kimberley and all -- it's a difficult issue. I've watched half of his presentation, but not yet all of it.

I can see he comes across as earnest and sincere, and I'm also well aware that it's almost impossible to square what he says with my understanding of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of straight-on, unbiased scientific studies that conclude exactly the opposite. A very large number of laboratory animals have died proving that radiation is very harmful for animal bodies. It's easy to find images if you can stomach looking at them.

I have no way of testing this myself. I am far from convinced. I'm not sure I'd like to eat a Cesium sandwich or go swimming in the Fukushima reactor pool. :)

It may not be wise or smart to base the claims of just one man, who was not in a laboratory to prove his claims beyond any doubt, but only speaking to an audience at a podium, and who is not with us any more to ask about Fukushima or anything else, in order for us to sleep easy about the problem and tell ourselves that there's no issue of any kind.

That would seem to be to be folly of the highest order: basing our entire emotional and logical response on the basis of what we WANT to hear and be reassured of. That's my concern. Tens (of not hundreds) of thousands of people who lived near Chernobyl died of something. That data, and the images of the victims, are not faked or falsified. Even allowing for a distortion factor of ten (which is a lot!) -- there is a problem there.

A well-attested and witnessed public case is that of the Russian Nuclear submarine the K-19, which experienced a critical reactor accident in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/K-19.jpg

There was an excellent movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267626/) about it, with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. The film is harrowing: it accurately depicts the very heroic Russian submariners going into the failed reactor one by one to try to save the situation. They all died within days. Here are the details:

http://projectavalon.net/K-19_deaths.gif

778 neighbour of some guy
25th August 2013, 11:25
Hm, some time ago the Galen thread was removed as a sticky, this amongst other people bothered me and Kim and after requesting Paul he decided to sticky it again, we were told it was just to clean up the threads, yet there are hundreds if not thousands of threads of way less importance (imo) including my own that haven't been posted on for years.

I am by no and I mean NO means an expert on nuclear technology but do know dangers are or can be involved when and if used or maintained incorrectly, but the questions I personally had sounded like this.....thousands of nuclear tests and all that was required to survive them was some distance a ditch and sufficient time to wait out the echo blastwaves ( blast passes over you once and returns again to its point of origin due to blahdidiblah, the vacuum it left on place of origin, goes around and comes around, anyway, there's a blast and a suck) and you have to wait both of these out, then you can get up, cover your mouth to stop immediate fallout crap and then your good again... well now, with thousands of on ground, below ground, underwater, atmospheric tests.. and constant confirmations of the destructive nature of at least the blast, heat wave, pressure wave and fallout, why then build nuclear powerplants that contradict the danger of nuclear power, if it REALLY was that dangerous why not stay the hell away from it in the first place, If the enemies bombs wont kill us... lets just kill ourselves, by putting up as many plants as we can in a nice spread out fashion so can kill ourselves all at once, whoopieeeeeeeeee, sure.. we can do this.... lets build them............... nah... not buying it, there is much much more to this story to tell and they aren't telling US.

I am very intrigued by the Galen presentations and lectures and am of the opinion they should at least stay up for the perspective they give, at least one different perspective, on the other hand I feel this is not the answer to end the discussion because lots of doubt and fear WILL remain in the larger population of the planet ( just look at this forum when the subject arises and we must be the group of best informed people on the planet at this day and age, even idiots like me are way better informed and its baffling to observe the discrepancy in knowledge there is between myself and people around me, I ( idiot) know so much more ( to a certain extent) than almost everyone I meet and that cant be good... I will repeat that..... not good.

If we still want include nuclear in this larger picture, perhaps the alternatives are better to explore, free energy is not going to happen any time soon the way I see it so perhaps Thorium IS the way to go, lots of work has been done on it already, much safer, more efficient, more abundant, the problem is in the oil, nuclear in its current form isn't the safest thing on earth, neither is oil, but its just so much cheaper then oil, when I would trade in oil, I would hate nuclear.

The environmental movement is keeping oil IN business and nuclear out of it, don't forget this.......... the people who started that movement also grew up in the cold war era, my mom was trained to duck under her school desk, take cover in ditch, curbside, stand under a doorway or run for the basement or subway, I as small tiny 778 walked in a lot of demonstrations against nuclear and bombs together with my parents, I hope the younger generations will and can stay free of this fear, but the truth has to be told and for that we also need Galens perspective, just for starters, and in the mean time research the alternatives.

Edit, it seems Bill and I were writing and posting opposing perspectives at approximately the same time and reading it made me wonder since when Hollywood and Wikipedia are trustworthy sources of information, anyone can post whatever they want on Wikipedia and Hollywood.......... biggest fear mongers and opinion makers and social engineers of them all, so once again I say there are many more sides to the story, also, please do remember who the folks are who subsidize/sponsor Universities and research and development ( usually to steer pursuit of knowledge and outcomes of that in the direction they wish, like in medicine, nutrition is the least addressed part, prescribing crap however...................big money to be made here, so....... as long as oil is available as a big profit earning product and energy source, no nuclear, no solar, no wind, no free energy and no Thorium will be pursued in the way it actually should be and attempts to scare us sh!tless an divide us to the bone will continue).

The Truth Is In There
25th August 2013, 12:52
as with everything, the dose makes the poison.

Finefeather
25th August 2013, 13:15
I can see he comes across as earnest and sincere, and I'm also well aware that it's almost impossible to square what he says with my understanding of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of straight-on, unbiased scientific studies that conclude exactly the opposite. A very large number of laboratory animals have died proving that radiation is very harmful for animal bodies. It's easy to find images if you can stomach looking at them.

It has of course also been noted by many people with the necessary qualifications...which I lack...that in many cases animals are entirely unsuitable for comparative testing to determine what humans should or should not ingest or use or get exposed to.
I am not trying to be remotely scientific when quoting this:


“There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” –
MacLennan & Amos. (1990). Clinical Science Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers, XVII, 24.

However in my experience of trying to understanding the levels of matter which make up the human body, which is determined by the state and quality of the etheric body vibration, some humans are able to withstand and reject pathogens and other viruses, and avoid been infected by some quite mean 'bugs' out there. I know of a case were one guy could not be infected by the aids virus, despite him been directly exposed to it...clinically.
And of course there are just thousands if not millions of cases which prove the same idea...not everyone is affected by the same thing.

Now IMO it is generally the majority who will 'catch' some 'bug' simply because they are the average state of the human race...and somewhere out there, will be a case where someone, or some group, or some persons with a 'different state of body vibration' will be found who are quite immune to atomic radiation. I do not know what the differences might be in the atomic structure of the materials they use for different uses, like weapons or power generation, but it might hold the key to the variations in what humans can or cannot safely be exposed to, from a nuclear fallout point of view.

IMO this entire anomaly is answerable by studying and knowing what takes place at the molecular level of our bodies when it is prepared in some way for higher consciousness.

To put it bluntly...the more we grow 'spiritually' in the form of consciousness growth...the more immune our bodies become to disease...and you cannot test that with animals.
Take care
Ray

ljwheat
25th August 2013, 14:28
This anima (Jungian psychology) for who among us has handled, tested, or studied any of this in a lab, as Bill has pointed out. So the anima is still an inner assumption, base sourly on what we have seen in pictures, or lectures.

Bobbed wire, concrete, and high level security keeps everyone out of the NRC inner loop, Galen came along long before the NRC was set up.

As fare as anima and inner held beliefs are as concrete as ones anima against snakes, or even spiders. No matter how harmless an outside object or event may be the anima of deeply held beliefs will all ways hold as the prime reaction when that anima pops up.

Based on lie’s or facts inner beliefs are the rabbit hole we are going down we all talk about, searching for hidden truth to release those inner anima’s built by this matrix we were born into. No different than a blank computer good stuff in good stuff out or the reverse.

And what ever your anima tells you, that world is true for only you, and make it absolutely true and fact in your inner world. Based on data in, since birth color’s our individual world.

I just thought hooking up with a web site that is based on jumping down the rabbit hole with some one that based his life on interviewing those behind the official story’s would help me threw this matrix of tricks and deception, to actually see threw my own anima’s at a deeper level.

And since the matrix is all about slavery, and control, I lean more and more to Galen’s anima on why after years of hands on, first person research -- his boss is suddenly adding rules, and regulation to a technology that could change the world we live in, if you get rid of his boss who is representing , then the new born NRC to keep -- free --out of the public eye.

Braking the matrix hold on everyone’s anima’s when it was installed at a early age, by adults that were raised into and passed on to the young is were world control beings. Catch 22 , rules this planets anima’s --- know the truth and it will set you free, from the matrix sticky attachment to us all.

So for me I am free, from what most of you do not see. But what you do see is true for you as it is for me. Even at the expense of the matrix that I live in. so it boils down to we are all right. And that’s why there is war, and arguments at every turn in life.

We were born here, we didn’t invent it. -- we were enslaved by it. Who among us has had first person hands on 30 year in this field, “none.” And we let our anima’s control our opinions on this?


6wKyXA_nMVQRFSWW4O6QNM

sdv
25th August 2013, 15:19
Hiroshima by John Hersey should be compulsory reading for every American. (you can't change the past, and guilt is meaningless, but maybe you can make sure that something like this never again happens in your name.) The book explains some of the myths and realities about exposure to nuclear radiation and why some people survive and others don't. (Some people were just darn lucky!) Perhaps the worst of those attacks was that the USA did not reveal what kind of bombs had been dropped (different for Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of the great experiment) so, in the aftermath, the Japanese did not know they were dealing with radiation sickness and thus did not know what the appropriate treatment was.

Fukishima is a direct threat to the Japanese (a small country with not much land or resources), so can we please stop the denial and start caring!

Yes, the radiation from Fukishima is not a huge threat to Americans, or the rest of people in the world, so no harm to most to debate if nuclear radiation is harmful or not, because if you are wrong, you will not suffer from that mistake. I was living in southern England when Chernobyl blew, and I am still alive and cancer free, even though I was exposed to some radiation fallout. It is the generally accepted scientific view that I personally will not be harmed by radiation from Fukishima (personally, I am much further away from Fukishima than I was from Chernobyl, so I believe this). Is this a good reason for nothing to be done?

Maybe radiation in small doses is beneficial to people. Maybe without our daily does of radiation, we would naturally live over 200 years. We don't really know, do we? We do know that too much radiation is harmful, and deadly (i.e. will kill) to people, and probably more so to smaller creatures on Earth.

How about the creatures living in the ocean around Fukishima? Do you really have the right to decode that there is no threat to them, that no suffering or harm will be imposed on life in the seas around Fukishima, based on the anecdotal evidence of Galen Winsor? For their sake, I would rather err on the side of caution and do whatever I can to clean up this mess to ensure that I do no harm.

By the way, because Bill Ryan quoted Wikipedia and a movie as evidence of what happened on that USSR submarine does not mean that it did not really happen. It did. Chernobyl also did happen, and hundreds of men died within days in the clean up and containment, and many suffered and took longer to die, and many children were born with deformities and illnesses. Investigate what happened on K-19 and at Chernobyl. Russians are awesome. Show me another country in the world where men would do what they did to respond to those disasters in the way they did, sacrificing their lives in doing so. They should have called the Russians in to clean up Fukishima!

Yes, most people are not at risk from radiation from Fukishima and thus can indulge in debate, denialism, forming opinions and attaching ourselves to beliefs, but we have no right to motivate and campaign that there is no risk of harm and so nothing should be done, and then expect others to suffer the consequences if we are wrong.

Operator
25th August 2013, 16:18
There was an excellent movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267626/) about it, with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. The film is harrowing: it accurately depicts the very heroic Russian submariners going into the failed reactor one by one to try to save the situation. They all died within days.

I've seen this movie years ago and forgot the title. Thanks for bringing this up, now I know where to look to see it again. :thumb:

Lone Bean
25th August 2013, 16:23
If the fuel pool sitting on top of reactor #4 falls to the ground, or the rods (a mess of pick-up-sticks) begin a chain-reaction fire, then the West coast of America will need to be evacuated, it is said, within 10 days. And it won't be long before the entire planet is dead because the radiation being emitted from the failed fuel pool in Fukushima will involve the other fuel pools there and hence will spread to other areas causing them to be uninhabitable, (Korea, parts of China, the entire of Japan). If these areas become uninhabitable, there will be no one to tend to the many nuclear power plants and they will in turn have nuclear melt-downs snd fuel pool chain reactions further exacerbating an already critical situation. It's a vicious cycle that will eventually cover the entire planet included the area south of the equator. There will be no safe place to hide. Intense prayer and meditation on a massive scale is our only chance of survival.

778 neighbour of some guy
25th August 2013, 16:44
Sigh, you know what is the strangest thing in this whole discussion imo, if the whole world was in danger, REAL IMMIDIATE LIFE THREATHENING danger, all nations of the world would be invading Japan faster than the Germans invaded Sudentenland to contain this crap, if someone or a nation is for some reason suicidal and stupid enough and willing to drag the whole planet with them, f@ck their sovereignty, if you don't contain your sh!t we WILL come and contain it for you, we DO want to live you see, so far the above has not happened, so far the whole world gets turned upside down when once in a while a poor desperate screwed up terrorist so much as only farts in the wrong direction, GMO seeds kill the whole world, the US behaves likes the biggest bully in the world and stomps your face into the ground, murders millions and millions, steps into every extremely dangerous, murderous and expensive conflicts in the world or creates them, accidentally forgets to inform the fleet and people in Hawaii of imminent attack, installs sjahs, makes up Tonkin incidents, ****s all over south America and what else have we, creates a war on drugs it imports its self and thereby mass murders its own population and poor smucks all over the globe, forgets to inform the people space is really much more interesting and whats out there even more, Flies planes into buildings on its own soil and you still doubt they would not lie to you regarding the subject of radiation?

Please, something strange is up here, very strange, why would they not lie????

Yes agreed, Fukushima, last place in the world where I would get a tan, weird thing is nation states all over the globe with massive immediately deployable means still haven't tunneled below that reactor to fill the hole with concrete and have not covered the site in ten feet of lead and twenty meters of concrete, if the need and absolute will was there this sh!t would have been contained in 6 months max, and yet somehow the energy is not put into doing this, so, wtf is going on????

Ernie Nemeth
25th August 2013, 16:49
Who says radiation is not dangerous? In large enough dosage it can kill very quickly. I am interested in the fact that radioactivity is said to contaminate other materials simply by being in close contact with radioactive material. This is the lie. Radioactive material cannot cause contamination just by close proximity. It must mix with the other material to contaminate it. Until this was pointed out by Mr. Winsor, I thought such contamination was fact.

As far as the health effects of low dose radiation goes, who knows. I would not want to purposely expose myself to any level of radiation beyond the background level. But I've been to radium hotsprings and I can say that it was certainly therapeutic. Personally, I'd rather take mud baths. They are amazing!

Kimberley
25th August 2013, 16:55
Thank you Bill and All...

I looked at the view count of the Galen video before posting this thread and at least 100 more people have viewed the video.

I was not convinced of anything when I first watched and listened to the 3 galen lectures...it was after we compiled the substantiating information on this thread:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-

I am not going to argue this out again we did that in the thread (above). All I am going to say is that 100's of people did NOT die at Chernobyl...and the animals (flora and fauna) are thriving there...

And once again I say a nuclear power plant is NOT the same thing as a nuclear bomb...

For those of you that have interest in this topic TargetT is very knowledgeable about radiation and he spent a lot of time posting information about it in this recent thread:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62507-Japan-nuclear-agency-upgrades-Fukushima-alert-level

I am sure he will check into this thread when he has the time.

We have ALL been lied to for generations about almost everything...so I do not know what to believe any more as far as research and studies and such...I have learned to listen to my inner wisdom and to follow the clues/synchronicity's that show up in my life. That is the best we each can do in this crazy mixed up world of misinformation.

I am looking forward to the day when truth abounds and so very glad that we are heading in a forward upward direction toward peace on earth!

Thank you one and all for all you are! :grouphug:

778 neighbour of some guy
25th August 2013, 18:39
I understood from a member on the thread Wikipedia is indeed a good source to get your info so here it is.

Now if someone could explain to me why this supposedly very very very dangerous stuff is even allowed in our midst, hundreds upon hundreds of reactors, if you check out Chernobyl ( its on the list you can see the other three were left up and running for years to come after the initial disaster).

Lots have been shut down or decommissioned others are still under construction.

I suppose there is a 300% guaranteed backup / containment plan for each and every one of these hundreds of reactors in case God forbid something would go wrong eh ??

Again, I am not for it, but I just want to know what it actually is I am being against.

509 reactors in total when al finished ( not all research reactors are included)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Carmody
25th August 2013, 19:09
--------

A well-attested and witnessed public case is that of the Russian Nuclear submarine the K-19, which experienced a critical reactor accident in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/K-19.jpg

There was an excellent movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267626/) about it, with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. The film is harrowing: it accurately depicts the very heroic Russian submariners going into the failed reactor one by one to try to save the situation. They all died within days. Here are the details:

http://projectavalon.net/K-19_deaths.gif

Russian submarine advisers were on set for that film. Everything about that ship (it was rebuilt in it's entirety, indoors, yes..a 1:1 full submarine model, an exact duplicate) was done to be as historically accurate as possible. source: direct, verbal.

Carmody
25th August 2013, 19:20
K-19:
Kathryn Bigelow makes a dramatic and interesting film which is as accurate as possible, and gets panned for it. Film loses money.


Hurt Locker:
Kathryn Bigelow makes a dramatic and interesting film which is incredibly absurd, physically inaccurate, and as militarily and scenario-wise impossible as can be, and wins an academy award for it.

Lesson: in the public eye, over amped garbage ---wins.

Sammy
25th August 2013, 19:32
disinfo or what?

I don't have a lean on this one though I want to believe it.

173zxfh9pNk

Sammy
25th August 2013, 19:35
--------

A well-attested and witnessed public case is that of the Russian Nuclear submarine the K-19, which experienced a critical reactor accident in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/K-19.jpg

There was an excellent movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267626/) about it, with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. The film is harrowing: it accurately depicts the very heroic Russian submariners going into the failed reactor one by one to try to save the situation. They all died within days. Here are the details:

http://projectavalon.net/K-19_deaths.gif

Russian submarine advisers were on set for that film. Everything about that ship (it was rebuilt in it's entirety, indoors, yes..a 1:1 full submarine model, an exact duplicate) was done to be as historically accurate as possible. source: direct, verbal.

And note... those were humans who happen also to be (at least in part) animals.

And note, this was also real life, not experiments.

Bubu
25th August 2013, 22:08
nature of deception

when mainstream says it's "yes" then you can bet it's "no", almost all of the time

Bill Ryan
25th August 2013, 22:31
disinfo or what?

I don't have a lean on this one though I want to believe it.

[The IRRADIA Couple from Russia]

I've heard (indirectly) from an apparently reliable source that they are Russian agents, and the entire story is bogus. Place that report in the category of 'witness testimony'.

Separately, here's my honest opinion of Galen Winsor.

There seem to be three possibilities (in no special order here) -->


He's a freak of nature (not an insult: there may be something remarkable about his body that most other bodies don't share)
He's lying or deluded (or has been paid to lie)
There's something about radiation that we don't yet understand.

Operator
25th August 2013, 23:01
disinfo or what?

I don't have a lean on this one though I want to believe it.

[The IRRADIA Couple from Russia]

I've heard (indirectly) from an apparently reliable source that they are Russian agents, and the entire story is bogus. Place that report in the category of 'witness testimony'.


There seems to be a sudden 'promotion' of radio active materials en radiation ... all my red flags are raised.
Propaganda ... but for what purpose?

Kimberley
26th August 2013, 03:44
Hey...this article is very interesting...however I am asking when did "they" start measuring radiation in tuna??? so how do we know that tuna has not always been radioactive???


Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Caught Off California Coast

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/08/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-caught-off-california-coast/

And I must add this song that I love and knew about before it was a "hit" song...just love it! And will note that I for one do not think the term "new age" is a dirty word...I say new earth...new way...whatever...

Imagine Dragons - Radioactive

3JnxmI1ojYc

Kimberley
26th August 2013, 16:55
Well time will tell if Galen and all the others that have come to a realization that nuclear energy reactors may/are not be as destructive as we have been led to believe...

I am glad that I now have much relief around nuclear energy reactors...especial since I live 30 minutes away from one.

We all get to come to our own understandings and like someone said if what is happening at fukushima is as "bad" as we are being told it is then why does it seem that nothing is being done about it?

So I will rest easy still as I have for more than a year now do to all of the information that we found that is in support of Galen Winsor's claims that he was trying to tell people almost 30 years ago.

I still do not know if Bill Ryan listened to all that Galen had to say or if Bill looked at any of the other supporting information...However the seed has been planted now for him and many more.

Yes time will tell.....And all is well!

Much love, peace, and fun to us all, always in all ways! :grouphug:

Lone Bean
26th August 2013, 17:05
My momma said if you can't say nothing nice, then keep your big yap shut. That's why I've deleted my previous post. ;)

onawah
26th August 2013, 18:33
There has been a lot of discussion on Avalon about the agendas of various groups who want to see the population of the planet reduced significantly.
So I think the answer to your question in part, is fairly obvious.
(Of course, it's an insane, ultimately self-destructive agenda for the earth-based groups, but I don't think anyone has ever questioned that!)
The other related question which is "who would pay for that 'something being done'" brings up a whole lot of other questions about who is ultimately responsible for such a disaster, and no doubt there has been a huge amount of buck-passing going on among governments, UN agencies, corporations, etc., particularly with the state the world economy is in now.
(There aren't a lot of precedents, after all.)
In view of the info on this thread...:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62672-IT--S-ALL-ABOUT-TO-KICK-OFF-after-1st-Sept-2013-...-Game-Over
...perhaps the Vatican will ultimately have to loosen its pursestrings, but it's probably anybody's guess at this point.

However, the real problem with the question is, it's not a rational proposition that just because nothing much is being done about Fukushima therefore means that it's not a problem!
And I doubt that that kind of reasoning is going to win you a lot of support.

update:Then again, I think it was a good move to bring this to Bill Ryan's attention. If there are any other whistleblowers currently out there with info on this issue, hopefully he will hear about it and alert us on Avalon. And that might be the impetus for more digging around for further evidence, which certainly could make a lot of difference.



We all get to come to our own understandings and like someone said if what is happening at fukashima is as "bad" as we are being told it is then why does it seem that nothing is being done about it?

Sammy
26th August 2013, 20:31
disinfo or what?

I don't have a lean on this one though I want to believe it.

[The IRRADIA Couple from Russia]

I've heard (indirectly) from an apparently reliable source that they are Russian agents, and the entire story is bogus. Place that report in the category of 'witness testimony'.

Separately, here's my honest opinion of Galen Winsor.

There seem to be three possibilities (in no special order here) -->


He's a freak of nature (not an insult: there may be something remarkable about his body that most other bodies don't share)
He's lying or deluded (or has been paid to lie)
There's something about radiation that we don't yet understand.


This then suggests something may be up with the interviewer as well.

My biggest problem is with discernment because I want to believe folks are square shooters and sadly, this is not always the case. Thanks, for the weigh in Bill. Everything is so darn tricky!

nonesuch
27th August 2013, 01:05
Just throwing this into the mix. Several years ago, maybe 2004, I was friends with a woman here in Santa Fe whose husband, a scientist, was in the process of retiring from Los Alamos Labs. I met him at their home over dinner one night and after we ate I got to talking to him in his study about many topics including nuclear energy. I don't recall many of the details of our tal or how I came to ask him about the problem of nuclear waste and the incredibly long time it would affect the planet.

I wasn't accusatory or taking a stance against him in any way, though I was withholding my point of view from him so that I might get some inside information he wouldn't be forthcoming about otherwise. Though he was intelligent snf liberal, he indicated with a couple comments that he was not friendly to protests against his chosen profession.

In answer to my question about nuclear waste, he told me rather casually that they'd already figured out an effective way to deactivate nuclear waste years ago and it was no longer a problem. I was shocked, but didn't have the state of mind to ask him why in hell's name that knowledge wasn't applied in the world. My Libran diplomacy was in full swing as I was somewhat horrified to be talking to the 'enemy' but didn't want to shut down the discussion by picketing his study.

There was no drama or defensiveness in his answer. Besides, nuclear energy wasn't the focus of his work. He was more interested in telling me about his pet project he was presenting to the top honchos on how to extract water from the atmosphere. It was pretty grandiose, but it was clearly real project. He took the time to draw models of how it would work and he was totally enthusiastic about the prospects of them being approved for development. I have no idea if it was top secret. It didn't seem to be and I never followed up with him about any of what we talked about, since we never became friends.

I watched all of part one of the Galen video. Though I know nearly nothing about the science of nuclear energy, I gathered from his video (that i'll watch again to verify) that the kind of radiation he exposed himself to was possibly a form that wasn't interacting in some way with other elements or processes that would make it dangerous. It wasn't the main thrust of his presentation though.

I believe he was telling the truth. He demonstrated on stage that he could touch and eat substances with levels of radiation we are led to believe by government and industry would kill everyone within a mile's radius. I don't know what to make of his ideas, since there are so many many people who have developed cancer or given birth to affected children as the result of exposure to nuclear radiation through accidents. I couldn't come up with a motive (other than speaker's fees) to present lies about real nuclear dangers that could get him in hot water with the industry he'd been involved with for years.

So, maybe there ARE ways to completely neutralize the dangers of nuclear radiation that the industry/government is not sharing with the public. Certainly, if the public found out that most of their fears about nuclear waste, war and bombs were created by lies, they'd be as angry as many are about the NSA's massive abuses of power.

It would be a paradigm shifter that would relax the entire planet if nuclear waste and contamination were no longer a problem. I'd welcome that new reality with open arms.

While there is obvious and proven dangers from the nuclear radiation we're exposed to, that doesn't exclude the possibility that solutions are already known and are not being applied for the good of all. Those who are not releasing solutions for use in the world have the most to gain from keeping it secret (money and power) and the most to lose (poverty, prison and death) if the world caught on to another layer of their institutionalized crimes against humanity.

Kimberley
27th August 2013, 01:17
thank you Nonesuch... your line of thinking resonates with my line of thinking...

Time will tell...won"t it??? :hug:

unfortunately... now that Bil has left this thread there are not many interested in it...although at least a few hundred have listened to Galen...and the seeds have been planted...that is all I/we can do and it is FUN!!! :-) woohooo howwwyyy WOWWWWIIYY!

TargeT
27th August 2013, 13:35
it's almost impossible to square what he says with my understanding of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of straight-on, unbiased scientific studies that conclude exactly the opposite.

Could you please link 1 test that involved humans out of those hundreds (of thousands??) of tests?

You are making statements here that will be weighed far beyond those I and many others on this forum could ever make & I think backing them up is very important.



Tens (of not hundreds) of thousands of people who lived near Chernobyl died of something. That data, and the images of the victims, are not faked or falsified. Even allowing for a distortion factor of ten (which is a lot!) -- there is a problem there.

Can you please link where your data came from for this comment?

The most commonly quoted sources for these Chernobyl numbers is 1 book,

a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster.[/U] Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document that looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: "In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world




A well-attested and witnessed public case is that of the Russian Nuclear submarine the K-19, which experienced a critical reactor accident in 1961.


this is sort of off topic isn't it?

You do understand what is being said in this thread (and many others) is that low levels of radiation are not bad for you, and in-fact are good for you..

low levels does not include active nuclear reactor chambers, the seamen on K-19 were exposed to doses that would be considered some of the highest doses possible; literally millions of times above the levels that are being discussed by this and many other threads.

Maybe you misunderstood the thrust of the thread but mixing that type of example in is very misleading.

Paul
27th August 2013, 15:18
You do understand what is being said in this thread (and many others) is that low levels of radiation are not bad for you, and in-fact are good for you.
I suspect that some of those posting here are being read as having written that pretty much any level of radiation is good for you, or at least relatively harmless, while others of those posting here are being read as having written that pretty much any level is bad for you. In both such cases, there is a tendency for such a reader to respond with a post that says "No ... the opposite can be true as well." Then in each such case, there is a tendency for those responding posts to be read as overly broad to the point of being incorrect in the opposite direction.

Fear mongering tactics by the bastards in power, alongside and in parallel with cover-up tactics by some of the same ilk, have polarized this discussion (that, or either the presence of too much, or the absence of sufficient, radiation has damaged our brains :).)

In short, and in more concrete terms, I'll wager that Bill presented his submarine example to counter what he read as overly broad defense of the safety of, even benefits of, radiation. Granted, I have flunked out of Bill-mind-reading school many times now, so I could easily be wrong.

In my view, not all warnings of radiation are "nuclear scare scams", and in particular, it is not yet demonstrated one way or the other to my satisfaction whether warnings of present or potential radiation from Fukushima are so misguided.

If someone was able to post some reasonably well evidenced measures of the various amounts of radiation being caused by Fukushima, or that could reasonably be caused by Fukushima in the event of further meltdowns, to various living beings, near and far from there, and if someone could relate those various levels to some reasonably well evidenced measures of what levels of radiation are inconsequential/beneficial/ambivalent/harmful to various living beings ... that I could find useful reading.

But I am finding discussions of the following form less useful:

(Written as) "No, it's not always black ... it can be white." (Read as) "It's white."
(Written as) No, it's not always white ... it can be black." (Read as) "It's black."

Thank-you, TargeT, for qualifying your statements as you have done, to refer to some levels having benefits. I have little doubt that you are right in that.

Carmody
27th August 2013, 15:27
Hot particles are an issue, as they come from things like depleted uranium. Ingestion of hot particles can create a local area in the body which is under continual high exposure levels, which can very likely lead to cancer's beginnings in the given local exposure area. ie, adjacent cells to that hot particle.

The given Hot particle may not really even show itself as a reading of any kind, when scanning things like a human body, but the particle is definitely there, deep in the body.

Materials that have been exposed to radiation, like fluids, and then have no hot particles, are maybe possible to consider as being - less of an issue.

Carmody
27th August 2013, 15:34
In answer to my question about nuclear waste, he told me rather casually that they'd already figured out an effective way to deactivate nuclear waste years ago and it was no longer a problem. I was shocked, but didn't have the state of mind to ask him why in hell's name that knowledge wasn't applied in the world. My Libran diplomacy was in full swing as I was somewhat horrified to be talking to the 'enemy' but didn't want to shut down the discussion by picketing his study.

Find my posts about Brown's gas and radiation.

This will show one known way to completely deactivate radioactive materials. I explicitly state HOW it is done. (in at least a few of the posts)

It is being HELD BACK AND BLOCKED, as the technology involved changes the fundamentals of human existence..and gives all of us an opening into universal knowledge and knowing, immense amounts of personal power, and total energy independence from all control schemes that can be erected in this world.

TargeT
27th August 2013, 17:52
[ I'll wager that Bill presented his submarine example to counter what he read as overly broad defense of the safety of, even benefits of, radiation. Granted, I have flunked out of Bill-mind-reading school many times now, so I could easily be wrong.

I'm sure this is (close) to what happened; the polarity being seen is just a bi-product of strongly held beliefs being challenged.. Rationality is the first casualty.


Hot particles are an issue, as they come from things like depleted uranium. .
DU is dangerous because it is a heavy metal & if it is absorbed somehow into the blood stream (via the lungs is possible) you will get heavy metal poisoning, or a Kinetic danger, if a round is fired at you..

Nanoo Nanoo
27th August 2013, 18:37
K-19:
Kathryn Bigelow makes a dramatic and interesting film which is as accurate as possible, and gets panned for it. Film loses money.


Hurt Locker:
Kathryn Bigelow makes a dramatic and interesting film which is incredibly absurd, physically inaccurate, and as militarily and scenario-wise impossible as can be, and wins an academy award for it.

Lesson: in the public eye, over amped garbage ---wins.

the Bigelow name is one to take note of...

meat suit
27th August 2013, 19:32
In answer to my question about nuclear waste, he told me rather casually that they'd already figured out an effective way to deactivate nuclear waste years ago and it was no longer a problem. I was shocked, but didn't have the state of mind to ask him why in hell's name that knowledge wasn't applied in the world. My Libran diplomacy was in full swing as I was somewhat horrified to be talking to the 'enemy' but didn't want to shut down the discussion by picketing his study.

Find my posts about Brown's gas and radiation.

This will show one known way to completely deactivate radioactive materials. I explicitly state HOW it is done. (in at least a few of the posts)

It is being HELD BACK AND BLOCKED, as the technology involved changes the fundamentals of human existence..and gives all of us an opening into universal knowledge and knowing, immense amounts of personal power, and total energy independence from all control schemes that can be erected in this world.

found it I think
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?8458-2.85-billion-fewer-polluting-cars-on-the-road....for-60M

Dawn
27th August 2013, 20:06
As far as the health effects of low dose radiation goes, who knows. I would not want to purposely expose myself to any level of radiation beyond the background level. But I've been to radium hotsprings and I can say that it was certainly therapeutic. Personally, I'd rather take mud baths. They are amazing!

This fear factor was with me most of my life and I could have summed up the beliefs I was programmed with as an exact match to this quote.

However I have since delved into this knowledge rather deeply and found that we have all been fed lies about radiation. It is rather like sunshine.... a certain amount is critical to health... but too much is bad for you.

I have embarked on a healing modality, with terrific results so far, which involves deliberate exposure to levels of radiation which can be found in uranium rich ores, stones, and glass. I have an open thread here on Avalon about it.

There is a LOT of information to suggest that we are UNDEREXPOSED to enough radiation to have maximum health. If you would like to broaden your mind try going here for links to books, articles, videos, and audio lectures: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation

sdv
27th August 2013, 21:05
I am not indulging in fear mongering nor do I have ardent anti-nuclear energy beliefs.

However, people (the word I use for human beings) are flawed, apt to make mistakes, vulnerable to corruption and evil, and, scarily, often incompetent. When there is an accident in a nuclear power facility, the consequences are bad for those who are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and not lucky enough to accidentally be far enough away from or shielded from that unexpected explosion(plenty of proof for this statement). What happened at Fukishima was an accident of nature, exacerbated by the behaviour of people.

How can you say for certain what level of radiation is not harmful to, does not cause suffering to life in the sea around this accident? What gives us the right to make these kind of decisions for tuna, et al? How can you say for certain that the radiation leaking from Fukishima will not have an alarming (for life on earth) effect on the atmosphere, the land around the plant and the underlying geology of that area?

I am in a safe zone and am only possibly at risk from eating sealife, but I would rather that this mess gets cleaned up ASAP without question than ask the sealife, the atmosphere and the earth to take the risk that my beliefs (if they were my beliefs) that all radiation is not harmful are right. To me, treating this as urgent is the right thing to do and not about fear mongering or conspiracy theories. Action does not have to suppress intellectual debate, but intellectual debate should never motivate to suppress action if not acting could cause harm that we do not have full understanding of.

Can folks on this forum hold the paradox of being an activist for immediate global action to clean up the mess at Fukishima and intellectually debate the evidence of proof regarding the harmful effects of radiation, at the same time? That is what my call is.

Atlas
27th August 2013, 21:46
Can folks on this forum hold the paradox of being an activist for immediate global action to clean up the mess at Fukishima and intellectually debate the evidence of proof regarding the harmful effects of radiation, at the same time? That is what my call is.
Hi sdv, I posted this on the Fukushima thread but I think it is relevant here too:

...we can't take this unique case to mean that everyone else is quite wrong and that there's a vast conspiracy to convince us that radiation is dangerous...
HOW DANGEROUS IS RADIATION?

Radiation consists of several types of subatomic particles, principally those called gamma rays, neutrons, electrons, and alpha particles, that shoot through space at very high speeds, something like 100,000 miles per second. They can easily penetrate deep inside the human body, damaging some of the biological cells of which the body is composed.

But before we shed too many tears for the poor fellow who was struck by one of these particles of radiation, it should be pointed out that every person in the world is struck by about 15,000 of these particles of radiation every second of his or her life […] These particles, totalling 500 billion per year, or 40 trillion in a lifetime, are from natural sources. In addition, our technology has introduced new sources of radiation like medical X-rays — a typical X-ray bombards us with over a trillion particles of radiation.

In order to discuss radiation exposure quantitatively, we must introduce the unit in which it is measured, called the millirem, abbreviated mrem. One millirem of exposure corresponds to being struck by approximately 7 billion particles of radiation

We frequently hear stories about incidents in which the public is exposed to radiation; radioactive material falling off a truck; contaminated water leaking out of a tank or seeping out of a waste burial ground; a radioactive source used for materials inspection being temporarily misplaced; malfunctions in nuclear plants leading to releases of radioactivity; and so on.

The thing I always look for in these stories is the radiation exposure in millirems, but it is hardly ever given. Eventually it appears in a technical journal, or I trace it down by calls to health officials. On a very few occasions it has been as high as 5-10 mrem, but in the great majority of cases it has been less than 1 mrem. In the Three Mile Island accident, average exposures in the surrounding area were 1.2 mrem — this drew the one-word banner headline "RADIATION" in a Boston newspaper.

In the supposed leaks of radioactivity from a low-level waste burial ground near Moorhead, Kentucky, there were no exposures as high as 0.1 mrem; yet this was the subject of a three-part series in a Philadelphia newspaper bearing headlines "It's Spilling All Over the U.S.," "Nuclear Grave is Haunting KY," and "There's No Place to Hide." In the highly publicized leak from a nuclear power plant near Rochester, New York, in 1982, no member of the public was exposed to as much as 0.3 mrem. Yet this was the top news story on TV network evening news for two days.

We are constantly bombarded from above by cosmic rays showering down on us from outer space, hitting us with 30 mrem per year; from below by radioactive materials like uranium, potassium, and thorium in the ground — 20 mrem/year; from all sides by radiation from the walls of our buildings (brick, stone, and plaster are derived from the ground) — l0 mrem/year; and from within, due to the radioactivity in our bodies (mostly potassium) — 25 mrem/year. All of these combined give us a total average dose of about 85 mrem per year from natural sources, or 1 mrem every 4 days. Thus, radiation exposures in the above mentioned highly publicized incidents are no more than what the average person receives every few days from these natural sources.

Diagnostic X-rays are our second largest source of whole body exposure. A dental X-ray gives us about 1 mrem, and a chest X-ray gives us about 6 mrem, but nearly all other X-rays give far higher exposures9: pelvis, 90 mrem; abdomen, 150 mrem; spine, 400 mrem; barium enema, 800 mrem. Often a series of X-rays is taken, giving total exposures of several thousand millirems. The average American gets about 80 mrem per year from this source, 80 times the exposure in the highly publicized radiation incidents.

There are several trivial sources of whole body radiation that give us about 1 mrem: an average year of TV viewing, from the X-rays emitted by television picture tubes; a year of wearing a luminous dial watch, since the luminosity comes from radioactive materials; and a coast-to-coast airline flight, because the high altitude increases exposure to cosmic rays. Each of these activities involves about the same radiation exposure as the highly publicized incidents.

All of the above-listed sources bombard all organs of our body, but the most important source of our exposure to radiation is radon gas in our homes […] About 5% of us, 12 million Americans, get more than 1,000 mrem per year, and perhaps 2 million Americans get over 2,000 mrem per year from radon. In a few houses, exposures have been found to be as high as 500,000 mrem per year.

How dangerous is 1 mrem of radiation? [...] in most situations, for each millirem of radiation we receive, our risk of dying from cancer is increased by about 1 chance in 4 million. This is the result arrived at independently by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation and the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation. The International Commission on Radiological Protection has always accepted estimates by these prestigious groups, as has the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the British National Radiological Protection Board, and similar groups charged with radiation protection in all technologically advanced nations.

This risk corresponds to a reduction in our life expectancy by 2 minutes. A similar reduction in our life expectancy is caused by


crossing streets 5 times (based on the average probability of being killed while crossing a street)
taking a few puffs on a cigarette (each cigarette smoked reduces life expectancy by l0 minutes)
an overweight person eating 20 extra calories (e.g., a quarter of a slice of bread and butter)
driving an extra 5 miles in an automobile

There has been intermittent publicity over the years about the fact that nuclear power plants, as a result of minor malfunctions or even in routine operation, occasionally release small amounts of radioactivity into the environment. As a result, people living very close to a plant receive about 1 mrem per year of extra radiation exposure. From the above example we see that, if moving away increases their commuting automobile travel by more than 5 miles per year (25 yards per day), or requires that they cross a street more than one extra time every 8 weeks, it is safer to live next to the nuclear plant, at least from the standpoint of routine radiation exposure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We now turn to the question of why the public became so irrationally fearful of radiation. Probably the most important reason is the gross overcoverage of radiation stories by television, magazines, and newspapers. Constantly hearing stories about radiation as a hazard gave people the subconscious impression that it was something to worry about.

We often heard about "deadly radiation" or "lethal radioactivity," referring to a hazard that hadn't claimed a single victim for over a decade, and had caused less than five deaths in American history. But we never heard about "lethal electricity," although 1,200 Americans were dying each year from electrocution; or about "lethal natural gas," which was killing 500 annually with asphyxiation accidents.

A more important problem with TV stories about radiation was that they never quantified the risk. I can understand their not giving doses in millirem — that may have been too technical for their audience — but they could have easily compared exposures with natural radiation or medical X-rays. In the 1982 accident at the Rochester power plant, which was the top story on the network evening news for two days, wouldn't it have been useful to tell the public that no one received as much exposure from that accident as he or she was receiving every day from natural sources?

It was my impression that TV people considered the official committees of scientific experts to be tools of the nuclear industry rather than objective experts. […] To believe that nearly all of these scientists were somehow involved in a sinister plot to deceive the public indeed challenges the imagination.

For those who can't understand why television excessively covered and distorted information about the hazards of radiation, I believe it was because their primary concern is entertainment rather than education. One point in the ratings for the network evening news is worth $11 million per year in advertising revenue. In that atmosphere, what would happen to a TV producer who decided to concentrate on properly educating the public rather than entertaining it?

As an illustration of the low priority the networks place on their educational function, I doubt if there are more than one or two Ph.D. level scientists in the full-time employ of any television network, in spite of the fact that they are the primary source of science education for the public. Even a strictly liberal arts college with no interest in training scientists typically has one Ph.D.-level scientist for every 200 students, whereas the networks have practically none for their 200 million students.

If TV producers took their role of educating the public seriously, they would have considered it their function to transmit scientific information from the scientific community to the public. But this they didn't do. They wanted to decide what to transmit, which means that they made judgments on scientific issues. When I brought this to their attention, they always said that the scientific community was split on the issue of dangers from radiation. […] Their position was that, since the scientific community was split, they had no way to find out what the scientific consensus was.

My strong impression was that they weren't really interested in what scientists had concluded. They were only after a story that would arouse viewer interest. Clearly, a scare story about the dangers of radiation serves this purpose best.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of the factors we have been discussing and perhaps some others, the public has become irrational over fear of radiation. Its understanding of radiation dangers has virtually lost all contact with the actual dangers as understood by scientists.

Perhaps the best example of this was the howl of public protest when plans were announced more than a year after the accident at Three Mile Island to release the radioactive gas that had been sealed inside the containment structure of the damaged reactor. This was important so that some of the safety systems could be serviced, and it was obviously necessary before recovery work could begin.

Releasing this gas would expose no one to as much as 1 mrem, and the exposure to most of the protesters would be a hundred times less. Simply traveling to a protest meeting exposed the attenders to far more danger than release of the gas; moreover, an appreciable number fled the area, traveling a hundred miles or more, at the time of the release.

Recall that 1 mrem of radiation has the same risk as driving 5 miles or crossing a street five times on foot. Needless to say, the statements of fear by the protesters were transmitted to the national TV audience with no accompanying evidence that their fears were irrational.

One disheartening aspect of that episode was the effort by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to handle it. An early survey of the local citizenry revealed that there was substantial fear of the release of the gas. The NRC therefore undertook a large program of public education, explaining how trivial the health risks were. When this public education campaign was completed, another poll of the local citizenry was taken. It showed that the public's fear was greater than it was before the campaign. The public's reaction on matters of radiation defied all rational explanation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a particle of radiation penetrates a cell, the damage it does may cause the cell to die. If enough cells in a body organ die, the organ may cease to function, and this can lead to a person's death by what is termed radiation sickness. A dose of 500,000 mrem received over a short time period gives about a 50% risk of death, and with 1,000,000 mrem this risk is 100% unless there is heroic medical intervention, as by bone marrow transplants. After such an intense exposure, loss of hair, swelling, and vomiting are typical symptoms. If death does not occur within 30 days, the victim normally recovers fully.

(source: phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5 (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/book/chapter5.html))

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://local.ans.org/virginia/3dSTW/2011/Fukushima.Radiation.Effects.pdf

Notice:


Collective dose estimates are about 800-1800 person-Sv to most affected population, and perhaps several times that to greater surrounding population
Chernobyl ~255,000 person-Sv



Deaths due to earthquake/tsunami: ~25,000
Deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures: 0



Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures: can’t be ruled out – conservative risk estimates ~100s cases, against an expected ~10 million cases
At this level, projected increase in cancer mortality would be ~0.001% above the natural rate

778 neighbour of some guy
27th August 2013, 23:52
In my view, not all warnings of radiation are "nuclear scare scams", and in particular, it is not yet demonstrated one way or the other to my satisfaction whether warnings of present or potential radiation from Fukushima are so misguided.


I understand very well how an opposite view can be mistaken for "pro nuclear") and I want by no means be mistaken as such, your post and this sentence just stuck in my head, so I have not yet read the whole thread to the last post, and have no clue how far this floated up the river yet.

And I don't really know how to put this into thought and text in a very concrete way, so I am basically just having a swing at it, but the subject , the discussion and just about anything around it has a very odd aura around it if you know what I mean.

And of course not all nuclear scare scams are for real, that part is pretty self evident, but history has shown ( not necessarily about the now discussed subject, the nuclear scare scam) that we have been lied to for whatever reason forever so far because someone benefitted big time, the who is for me personally the least important, the why and what for however are absolutely intriguing and that is exactly why I am so surprised why nations ( could be anybody including Japan )have not intervened big time, even when they would be playing charades to the outside world, they could have taken drastic measures to prevent this sort of calamity ( after the tsunami) ( and now the leaking yechh water)would even occur in the first place, anywho, sh!t has happened big time and that contaminated crap is seeping in the ocean big time for a long long time, even the Japanese would have, should have, could have known, lets not beat around the bush here, they knew, someone would find out anyway anytime soon.

And yet, still, nothing drastic, dramatic, in any form to contain this crap, and this time seriously, to put a stopper on it for once and for all or at least until a more permanent solution was found.

How, how can this be, this stuff, this lethal stuff( we are told) is allowed to radiate into everything in its path, water, people soil, zooplankton, algea, swimmers and four feeters remorseless, take in consideration there are now currently ( when completed) 509 up and running reactors for power production and research and development ( without even mentioning all those scary radiology labs in hospitals, ever been in one?), these 509 reactors, do you actually think, really think, the internal safety protocols ( back ups, automated shutdowns, blahblah) of a nuclear plant would guarantee sufficiently the safety to its developers to make the produced energy marketable?

Well, for the occasion I stand behind this train of though because I am having an excellent day, ok, safety is guaranteed apparently ( it has to be, dead customers cant pay you for the consumption of the power consumed by their sh!tty appliences).

New plants are being build all the time, everywhere..........just the wish of a nation to be independent from oil does not mean it is willing to irradiate its own population to death or crash its own economy when the lights go out.

It has to been worthy of taking the risk for some reason and we are not being the whole truth about this risk, remember, dead customers don't buy jack sh!t, they produce more than nuclear you know, they also produce you sneakers, your smartphone, the elastic in your underpants, these people are in every business you can imagine, so somehow, the chance they are taking must be worth it for some reason, is that because it is low risk in the first place and we can handle the science and perhaps containment when things go wrong and in case things do go wrong, the wrong may be not as bad as we have been told it is?

For some reason I think its a very obvious thing and I could be completely wrong, like with everything else in life just like anybody else, cold war, that's were the origins of this scare are, its roots, big badaboom, bigger badascared and no reason or intention to change that train of thought besides the proliferation of nuclear arms blahblah, " when we start shooting that sh!t at each other we'll be all dead so what's the f@cking point of having it, lets ditch it, deal, yeah man I was thinking the exact same thing, shake on it, put it in writing and lets get a brewski, this gave me a headache, you too?").

So here we go, less nukes, they are dangerous and flying shyte of proportions you would actually not wish to land up on your worst enemy, nobody wants to be a victim of THAT, nobody.

So, there is obviously different kinds of nuclear, boom and light bulbs, what makes burning light bulbs in a contained process apparently so much safer then a terrifying doomsday boombox?

How come, Fukushima is not buried under ten feet of concrete by now, how is this possible, is it because the Japanese are just behaving like two year old dickheads in the denial fase of their your lives? Don't think so, crap leaks out, that's for sure, but they withhold that info so long, why, we would find out anyway, is it as dangerous we have been told, in that case, you better hurry up....to the nearest nuclear plant and start shoveling dirt yourself, because if you don't see a concrete plant next to the reactor site to burry the f@cker instantly in case tshtf, it apparently safe enough without it, how come?? How come?

2 cts

Carmody
28th August 2013, 04:15
In answer to my question about nuclear waste, he told me rather casually that they'd already figured out an effective way to deactivate nuclear waste years ago and it was no longer a problem. I was shocked, but didn't have the state of mind to ask him why in hell's name that knowledge wasn't applied in the world. My Libran diplomacy was in full swing as I was somewhat horrified to be talking to the 'enemy' but didn't want to shut down the discussion by picketing his study.

Find my posts about Brown's gas and radiation.

This will show one known way to completely deactivate radioactive materials. I explicitly state HOW it is done. (in at least a few of the posts)

It is being HELD BACK AND BLOCKED, as the technology involved changes the fundamentals of human existence..and gives all of us an opening into universal knowledge and knowing, immense amounts of personal power, and total energy independence from all control schemes that can be erected in this world.

found it I think
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?8458-2.85-billion-fewer-polluting-cars-on-the-road....for-60M

Yes, that is the thread and the exact methodology is spelled out in it's entirety.

Research DR. Joe champion. Gold shortage? Precious metals? Transmutation? Basing currencies and wealth on precious metals? Running, ruining, and controlling economies via element resource controls? Precious metals markets will simply END. No shortage of gold, which takes us to the Annunaki gold scenario thing. Mining gold? Creating humans to do so? Meh. not so much....

Transmutation, on down, through the elemental table...into any form of element at all.. requires a high energy catalyst...probably... the one closest to a gas. the first element. Lithium.

Which takes you to the 'Lithium' thread.....(dimensional vibrational integration and a seed material possibly, thus the lithium)

However, Once this is all known, then direct High frequency RF interference fields can possibly do away with even that requirement, as they can gate dimensional vibrations directly into 'form'. In this case, elemental conversion would be the base function.

The horrible thing for the linear minded scientific view, is that it takes all of the physics work done at the so-called cutting edge, reported at places like 'physorg.com', and makes a mockery out of it.

Carmody
28th August 2013, 04:36
so, we have the possibility of all of this being played out as a game.

A 'gaming' of the 'human' population.

Good luck figuring out the reasoning behind that.

A specific observation on all of this, is: "The harder a problem is to solve, the more basic or fundamental the mistake in the formation of the question."

It becomes a question of: "What data, in the formation of the question, is missing?"

(You cannot get to the answer.... as you don't actually have the question in hand)

To paraphrase, and change a limerick... and answer a question put to me, in another thread:

In days of old,
when people were bold,
dogma was invented...

It allowed them to leave their load,
upon the road,
and continue on it,
contented.

Carmody
28th August 2013, 15:22
In answer to my question about nuclear waste, he told me rather casually that they'd already figured out an effective way to deactivate nuclear waste years ago and it was no longer a problem. I was shocked, but didn't have the state of mind to ask him why in hell's name that knowledge wasn't applied in the world. My Libran diplomacy was in full swing as I was somewhat horrified to be talking to the 'enemy' but didn't want to shut down the discussion by picketing his study.

Find my posts about Brown's gas and radiation.

This will show one known way to completely deactivate radioactive materials. I explicitly state HOW it is done. (in at least a few of the posts)

It is being HELD BACK AND BLOCKED, as the technology involved changes the fundamentals of human existence..and gives all of us an opening into universal knowledge and knowing, immense amounts of personal power, and total energy independence from all control schemes that can be erected in this world.

found it I think
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?8458-2.85-billion-fewer-polluting-cars-on-the-road....for-60M

Yes, that is the thread and the exact methodology is spelled out in it's entirety.

Research DR. Joe champion. Gold shortage? Precious metals? Transmutation? Basing currencies and wealth on precious metals? Running, ruining, and controlling economies via element resource controls? Precious metals markets will simply END. No shortage of gold, which takes us to the Annunaki gold scenario thing. Mining gold? Creating humans to do so? Meh. not so much....

Transmutation, on down, through the elemental table...into any form of element at all.. requires a high energy catalyst...probably... the one closest to a gas. the first element. Lithium.

Which takes you to the 'Lithium' thread.....(dimensional vibrational integration and a seed material possibly, thus the lithium)

However, Once this is all known, then direct High frequency RF interference fields can possibly do away with even that requirement, as they can gate dimensional vibrations directly into 'form'. In this case, elemental conversion would be the base function.

The horrible thing for the linear minded scientific view, is that it takes all of the physics work done at the so-called cutting edge, reported at places like 'physorg.com', and makes a mockery out of it.

So, has anyone, anyone at all, ever actually done this. has anyone created devices that work at producing FLT waveforms, that 'create' reality, FROM dimensional dark matter spaces..INTO 3-d linear unidirectional timespace?

The answer is yes.

Troy Hurtubise

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52045-Jesse-Ventura-Death-Ray-11-14-12-Directed-Energy-Weapons&p=584920&viewfull=1#post584920

and:

http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8267

Aim two finely constructed solar cells at one another, with a 'hair' of difference in distance from each other... one end to the other.

Fire a shock-pulse of energy into each, simultaneously. They are PLANAR transistors. With RF output.

The resultant wave that squeezes out of the gap, will be FTL. (faster than light, a dark matter higher dimensional 'out of time' wave).

Now, with that in mind....go look at the Troy Hurtubise article..AGAIN.

Then... we've also got John hutchison's works. (http://www.hutchisoneffect.ca/)

It show that it is possible to contemplate the creation or the reduction of radiation in materials, via the same tricks.

Again, technology is being held back, and you are being purposely GAMED.

Don't be angry about it... as that will bring you to incorrect conclusions. Don't let emotionally based thought formation block you from getting this fixed.

ulli
28th August 2013, 16:18
In answer to my question about nuclear waste, he told me rather casually that they'd already figured out an effective way to deactivate nuclear waste years ago and it was no longer a problem. I was shocked, but didn't have the state of mind to ask him why in hell's name that knowledge wasn't applied in the world. My Libran diplomacy was in full swing as I was somewhat horrified to be talking to the 'enemy' but didn't want to shut down the discussion by picketing his study.

Find my posts about Brown's gas and radiation.

This will show one known way to completely deactivate radioactive materials. I explicitly state HOW it is done. (in at least a few of the posts)

It is being HELD BACK AND BLOCKED, as the technology involved changes the fundamentals of human existence..and gives all of us an opening into universal knowledge and knowing, immense amounts of personal power, and total energy independence from all control schemes that can be erected in this world.

found it I think
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?8458-2.85-billion-fewer-polluting-cars-on-the-road....for-60M

Yes, that is the thread and the exact methodology is spelled out in it's entirety.

Research DR. Joe champion. Gold shortage? Precious metals? Transmutation? Basing currencies and wealth on precious metals? Running, ruining, and controlling economies via element resource controls? Precious metals markets will simply END. No shortage of gold, which takes us to the Annunaki gold scenario thing. Mining gold? Creating humans to do so? Meh. not so much....

Transmutation, on down, through the elemental table...into any form of element at all.. requires a high energy catalyst...probably... the one closest to a gas. the first element. Lithium.

Which takes you to the 'Lithium' thread.....(dimensional vibrational integration and a seed material possibly, thus the lithium)

However, Once this is all known, then direct High frequency RF interference fields can possibly do away with even that requirement, as they can gate dimensional vibrations directly into 'form'. In this case, elemental conversion would be the base function.

The horrible thing for the linear minded scientific view, is that it takes all of the physics work done at the so-called cutting edge, reported at places like 'physorg.com', and makes a mockery out of it.

Dr. Joe Champion appeared on the Wingmakers forum I was on more than ten years ago. That forum was closed, no records exist, unfortunately.
He wrote many informative and polite posts about transmuting metals.
But never before nor since have I seen a person put through the forum meat grinder like that poor man...
People who had previously appeared reasonable, intelligent human beings became incredibly rude and aggressive, to the point that it was shocking to read.
So I began to pay more attention to this guy, understanding the polarity between geniuses and the persecutions they often suffer. There seems to be an exact ratio there.

Truly self-realized people don't attack others in such a manner, simply because the person is bringing something to the table that hasn't been tried or proven before.
If every time someone claims new or different ideas the whole world rises up to push them down then soon no one will be found willing to even look for new approaches, let alone present them to the rest of us.

I find something medieval in all this probing and harassing we are seeing...even here on this forum.
Such ferociousness ...what is this all about? What is behind it?

TargeT
28th August 2013, 18:22
Dr. Joe Champion appeared on the Wingmakers forum I was on more than ten years ago. That forum was closed, no records exist, unfortunately.
He wrote many informative and polite posts about transmuting metals.
But never before nor since have I seen a person put through the forum meat grinder like that poor man...
People who had previously appeared reasonable, intelligent human beings became incredibly rude and aggressive, to the point that it was shocking to read.
So I began to pay more attention to this guy, understanding the polarity between geniuses and the persecutions they often suffer. There seems to be an exact ratio there.

Truly self-realized people don't attack others in such a manner, simply because the person is bringing something to the table that hasn't been tried or proven before.
If every time someone claims new or different ideas the whole world rises up to push them down then soon no one will be found willing to even look for new approaches, let alone present them to the rest of us.

I find something medieval in all this probing and harassing we are seeing...even here on this forum.
Such ferociousness ...what is this all about? What is behind it?

Aside from Archonic influences (nudges really, not much is needed) what you are seeing is the outcome of a challenged strongly held belief, our brain reacts to these challenges as if we are physically being threatened; the neurological (neuroochemical really) responses can (and usually do) revert the person to a more reptilian-brain state which of course is characterized by viciousness (usually either lightly, or not so lightly veiled) circular thinking and thick with logical fallacy.

Until I understood this I thought for a long time that people are just "arseholes" online & that the anonymity allowed it to come out; now I know it is a basic function of our brain. Perhaps even a function that has been carefully inserted into the current genetic set as it ties in very nicely with Carmody's Death of Genetics (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62715-Religious-Texts-and-Genetic-Death)thread.

I think the primary job of moderators is to deal with these types of situations, as they can arise randomly on nearly any topic (as long as the topic is a strongly held belief by one or more parties involved in the discussion)

You right on the self-realization part (how else do you notice the aberrant behavior in yourself?), but that is a goal that some don't even pursue so the continuance of this pattern can be expected.


(of course this is all my theory based on my research)

TargeT
3rd September 2013, 02:13
I find the following two posts by our own gittarpikk to be profound and light shedding on this topic; first hand witness testimony is very weighty...... Do not let this rare inside offering go ignored.


Wow, actual hands on first person testimony on a hotly debated topic and not a single 'thanks' or comment at all...?


Well a real clue to what the real danger level could be is possibly in my own experience as a radiation worker back in the early 90's for Duke power on the East coast

We were insulation workers /tradesmen and were hired during outages (plant repair /reload period of inactivity)

For about 2 weeks we played cards outside the gate while our security backgrounds were being checked and occsionally we had a class on plant ops , security and radiation .

In those classes....before we were actually allowed to be brought into the plant to work...we were told things about radiation including that yes in high levels it can damage your genes...but with protection (suits, cloths, masks, gloves and doscemetry --portable detection modules taped to your suit) and its proper wearing and tapiing all seames etc...that we would not pick up any radiation. We were 'allowed ' a certain amount of 'exposure' and tested by wand and/or beta machines at the end of each exposure to limit the actual exposure...and any physical contact with things like radioactive dust or water,

So if you got 'leaked on; by something like a tank valve and you had not properly donned your cotton suites, rubber gloves /boots etc...you could very well 'Crap Up'...which was the term used when you screwed up and took on radiation

this always resulted in meeting the RP (Radiation Protection) clean up team who were not very 'comfortable while they scrubbed your skin raw...and removed the offending rad dust from you before you were let outside the plant again

Sometimes duct tape, when rubbed down over an area that had contamination and pulled from the skin roughly would get it off...but sometimes it took many showers/cleaning to get you clean

I never 'Crapped up' once in my tenure of several outages..

but while there I understood and was told things the public is not aware of,,,

The whole RP thing is a huge overkill in the states.. to allow mega bucks to be charged to the public to keep things 'clean' and uncontaminated.

This includes huge storage facilities for even very slightly contaminated paper suits, gloves etc...as well as any tool /part that has been used and has a very slight trace of activity.

Radiation protection is a bureaucracy and mega godzillions are paid to create the circumstances to keep the 'public' clear of any 'contamination'...and that in reality it is much safer than the public is told/allowed to believe. I witnessed this by how little protection the 'RP' people wore when they did their checking inside the plant and protected areas (areas that had some radiation detected). Those areas has labels on the amount and location of hot spots for ll to see.

We , basically , were hired for our 'allowable' radiation exposure we could take as a human and were only allowed a certain amount per year... so we 'rented' our 'intake' to the company as a radiation skilled tradesman.

We also were made aware that in places like Japan, or other countries that they were seen many, many times with no protection at all...with no obvious effects of having been involved in radiation work.

However, our media, to create propaganda here in the states to keep the people scared, would search out any birth defects, etc and blow it up to huge proportions to make their points and keep that 'overkill' funding coming.

So it was told to us that we would never be exposed to any levels that could possibly hurt us in due to the overkill....and that the protection that other countries used was more appropriate for the actual exposure....but then again , they saved mega bucks uselessly spent on trivial protection....typical of third world countries.

So now we have had catastrophes at Fukushima.. and we see some things that our MSM have captured on video ...but its obvious they are not allowed inside the plant. My guess is they are walking around in it with little protection and their detectors are all set at only dangerous levels rather than the trivial amounts that our stateside detectors are set at.....but if the MSM gets info of the actual levels that are there...it seems WAAAAY to high...when in reality is safe...or maybe even just borderline on being dangerous...and if something gets dangerous...they do actually list an ' event' in their logs as required by the regulatory agencies.

Hope this helps to maybe understand what is actually dangerous....and what is media/bureaucracy fear mongering/bilking the population.





A bit more about the bureaucracy was brought out by Paul Harvey about the asbestos industry back in the early 90's.

He exposed publicly the fact how the findings were skewed to exaggerate the danger of the asbestos dust... The old insulators worked in it all day, every day for years in dust you could cut with a knife and 'sometimes' developed a lung disease ...but that coal workers as well as any kind of dusty environment worker could develop these same diseases ..and simple common sense of a dust mask was all one really needed to prevent over exposure ..

I distinctly remember an instance where I went through an orientation from the Union Carbide (I think it was) plant about all the usual dust/danger training's and then put in a room with 30 insulators ...to be there for weeks . what was weird was it was so dusty that you could not breathe...and with no ventilation. I asked for a dusk mask ....(simple ) to wear and they would not issue it...and the explanation was they were OSHA illegal and all I could wear would be a full blown rubber face mask/filter system (called sucking rubber) and they did not have enough time allowed to train me for weeks and to issue my own mask..

Remember I was a radiation worker ,,,and had just finished a job in a nearby city in a nuclear plant with dust masks and training many degrees/levels above what is needed in just a dusty environment .. I did not need any sort of training as I was well over-trained . ...but I was becoming a hassle for the management by requesting a simple (illegal) dust mask and was told to just go home unless I wanted to work with no protection... well I left.

This is how business is 'handled' in the real world...zero common sense and 100% what the bureaucracies/corporations want so they can make tons of money off the public as a whole.... This is only a couple examples of what this whole corporate structure represents and I am sure there are thousands more very similar examples people can give of similar things in the health service, big pharma, DOT, Dept of defense, judicial, political...and the list goes on and on... sorry for the rant... but felt it needed to be stated

Thanks a lot gittarpikk; for anyone that cares to find out the truth your contribution here is well noted.

Kimberley
3rd September 2013, 13:14
Thank you target for emphasizing gittarpikk's important posts... wonder If Bill read them?

Kari Lynn
20th September 2013, 19:35
I have read much of what is written here. I'm not sure I'd say that radiation was harmless. But certainly not something to be afraid of, unless someone intends to intentionally blow up a nuclear weapon or power plant in your area. There certainly are enough precautions a person can take to lessen radiation poisoning. (some will always be present and absorbed, even when wearing a suite)
I used to be very afraid of anything nuclear. Thinking if a bomb or power plant went off, it was the end of the world. Well, if your far enough away, not necessarily. Don't get me wrong.... Nuclear fission and fusion are VERY deadly. If out of control. If safety protocals are not followed, or at ground Zero.
My cousin and his wife are both nuclear physicists. They have been to Elgin Island to test the levels. Some 60 years later, and it's still not habitable without some pretty heavy risks. Birth defects and slow kill poisoning (cancer) most prominent. He went to Elgin Island in T-shirt and shorts as well as his wife. I was very concerned and questioned him about his safety. His reply was, "well, I don't piss glowing green!" lol.
But his wife and him raises dogs as his kids. They have to both quit their jobs and remain unemployed from that field of employment for 7 years before even attempting to conceive. He is now 57 yrs of age, I believe. So I don't think they plan to have children now.
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed. The animals would have decomposed and been eaten by other bugs and animals who are less suceptable (sp) to the radiation poisoning. Plants are even resilient. It grows back quickly. So it may look like it wasn't affected.
Personally, I trust my cousin. Certainly don't be afraid of it, but do be cautious. We would not want to have an incident like Russia or Japan here. Safety has to be enforced. We would not want to be building one of these over a flood zone, fault line, etc... OR with inferior building materials and practices.
Personally, I believe that there are other ways...safer ways.... cleaner ways to make electricity. With no nuclear waste and hazards. (air pollution from coal either.)
Our scientists need to research that further. But.... how to get the big corps, to let go their money and let this new technology come in?
As far as those that have died from direct nuclear fallout as a result of those power plant malfunctions. I don't know the numbers. But it should be agreed that SOME have died as a direct result of those power plant malfunctions.
If you had watched the documentary that they showed last week about Chernoble now, you'd have seen the pictures parents showed of their children who had died from it. children dying of thyroid cancer? Isn't just 1, one to many? If it were your son or daughter? If it were only just one of my children, it would be one too many for me.

TargeT
20th September 2013, 19:51
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed.

you make some absolute statements in the above post, statements that need backing up.

answer me this: what were the radiation levels at Chernobyl? (at the reactor during the failure, outside the reactor during the failure, 1000 meters from the reactor duriing the failure; 1 week after the failure out side the sarcophagus, 1000 meters from the sarcophagus etc.. any would do)


do you allow your children to drive in cars? how many infant deaths in cars were there LAST WEEK, how many infant deaths from radiation were there last YEAR?


in your post you are expressing ideas and thoughts that have been impressed on the world population by "authority" figures; but these authority figures have little to no actual data and make wild assumptions to gain the information they give out.


This topic has been thoroughly discussed in other threads on this forum and the basic conclusion is this:


Low levels of radiation are healthy for you (just like low levels of about anything) after a certain point radiation ( like everything else) becomes toxic.

The linear no threshold model is completely incorrect and based on guesses that are backed by no data (the assumption is that because high level exposure is bad, it must be bad all the way down to zero exposure, thus a linear model).

did you know there were many hundreds of people AT ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived and not only that, lived longer than average life spans?

this topic (like most) is very complex & needs diligent study to understand; you won't fully grasp it in a "skim" or quick read.



At this point, based on multiple examples, case studies and testimony; any opinion that largely deviates from these conclusions is incorrect.

Kari Lynn
20th September 2013, 20:57
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed.

you make some absolute statements in the above post, statements that need backing up.
You would have to have watched the documentaries on television. That is not something I can provide here. You'll have to check that out for yourself. Do a little homework for yourself. Are you trying to say that NO animals died as a result of the blast and radiation there? I suggest you prove that. Pretty sad when people can't be accepted at their word isn't it?

answer me this: what were the radiation levels at Chernobyl? (at the reactor during the failure, outside the reactor during the failure, 1000 meters from the reactor duriing the failure; 1 week after the failure out side the sarcophagus, 1000 meters from the sarcophagus etc.. any would do)
The levels do not concern me, therefore I do not care to look them up. A person of laymans terminology concerning nuclear physics can't understand technical terms anyway. My cousin who IS a physicist would understand it better than I, but he certainly wouldn't bother explaining it to me in his technical terms. I wouldn't understand anyway. I am satisfied with what I have read or heard about it in my layman's terms. If you are not, I suggest you go look up those numbers.



do you allow your children to drive in cars? how many infant deaths in cars were there LAST WEEK, how many infant deaths from radiation were there last YEAR?
Again, I do not concern myself with numbers. Isn't one death, one too many? Shouldn't we try to prevent them? All of them. I believe that is why we have car seats, road rules, as well as protocals for nuclear safety. I am a human activist. I hold ALL life dear, even if it's just 1. But especially if that 1 is my 1.
Just because I'd put my legal aged driving child behind the wheel of a car, doesn't mean I would give him an UNSAFE car! It has to have good breaks, good tires, etc... So likewise, just because I let him drive, doesn't mean I'd want him to go walk into the middle of core/ sarcophagus right after it exploded.



in your post you are expressing ideas and thoughts that have been impressed on the world population by "authority" figures; but these authority figures have little to no actual data and make wild assumptions to gain the information they give out.
Obviously you missed the part where I said, "I used to be very afraid of anything nuclear." ? I'm not so much anymore. My point was to make known that radiation is survivable. But safety has to be taken. It appears your reading your own thoughts into my words. I myself feel it is also a wild assumption to think that radiation can't kill at all. Even ONE person. And if you read my entire post, you would have seen the number I posted. Even if it's only 1 person. That's my point. government's and corp's weigh acceptable losses. Do you believe there should be acceptable losses? I don't. I believe there should be SAFETY. So much of these accidents were lack of SAFETY at some point. THAT'S what I find unacceptable.



This topic has been thoroughly discussed in other threads on this forum and the basic conclusion is this:


Low levels of radiation are healthy for you (just like low levels of about anything) after a certain point radiation ( like everything else) becomes toxic.
I agree with this. My cousin is living proof of this to me. As well as the fact that I had 8 MRI's done in a 3 month period. what ever gave you the impression that I said ALL radiation is lethal? I never said that. I said it was survivable. Even a nuclear bomb dropped on a city is SURVIVABLE. If you are far enough away to survive the initial blast, get to a fall out shelter, and stay there until the fall out levels become acceptable. My point was SAFETY, PRECAUTION, PREPAREDNESS


The linear no threshold model is completely incorrect and based on guesses that are backed by no data (the assumption is that because high level exposure is bad, it must be bad all the way down to zero exposure, thus a linear model).Again, I never said NO threshold. I said it was survivable. But if you think it's not harmful and no one at Chernoble has died from it, prove that to me, because I don't believe that.



did you know there were many hundreds of people AT ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that survived and not only that, lived longer than average life spans?
So does that prove that the radiation poisoning didn't happen? Many hundreds survived. For how long? Did they suffer poisoning later? Hair fall out, etc... How many more survived at Hiroshima and Nagasaki than died?



this topic (like most) is very complex & needs diligent study to understand; you won't fully grasp it in a "skim" or quick read.



At this point, based on multiple examples, case studies and testimony; any opinion that largely deviates from these conclusions is incorrect.

As I said, my cousin is the nuclear physicist. I'm not. I can't provide you with technical terms and numbers. I'm not a scientist. But I do listen to one who is. My cousin. He says it's safe enough for him at certain levels, knows what he's doing, so I believe him. But just because I can't provide you with college and scientific text book studies, does that mean I CAN'T have an opinion? Pretty sad world when someone can't be held at their word, or there is no honor anymore.

TargeT
21st September 2013, 06:00
you can provide numbers, you can do your own research... you are as powerful as anyone you trust.

until you believe that and understand your own power this conversation is pointless. look into what has been presented on this forum, then decide. (as an aside, I've probably spent 800 hours (perhaps more) at least on this topic, via testimony and evidence, reports and other sources) that should not matter at all to you, you should find out for yourself.

search "Hormesis" or "nuclear scam" on this very forum and see the vast amount of evidence backing what I claim.


I agree with this. My cousin is living proof of this to me. As well as the fact that I had 8 MRI's done in a 3 month period. what ever gave you the impression that I said ALL radiation is lethal? I never said that. I said it was survivable. Even a nuclear bomb dropped on a city is SURVIVABLE. If you are far enough away to survive the initial blast, get to a fall out shelter, and stay there until the fall out levels become acceptable. My point was SAFETY, PRECAUTION, PREPAREDNESS

well then, we agree on everything; fukushima is not that big of an issue.

I'm not even sure why you replied to this topic after the above statement.

Kari Lynn
21st September 2013, 17:05
It appears to me that you are a person who loves to be oppositional to everything I say, so it doesn't matter what my opinion of Fukushima is, you'd try to twist it in the opposite direction of what I was saying. So why don't you try reading my post again and see if you can actually understand what I was saying, because it appears that you don't.
I am not a scientist or a college student of nuclear sciences. I do not care to look up numbers, particles, science study manuals etc... I look simply at the results.
At some point, to learn anything in life, a person has to listen to another who knows more than them. Be it their teacher, dean, parent, someone who has written a book or manual about their studies, or cousin who has that professional college training. So am I to tell my cousin who has been through college, professionally trained that I don't believe a word he says and believe a man who puts a lecture on the internet? Or are you like that blond on the commercial who believes it because it's on the internet and you can't put it on the internet if it isn't true?
So now my question to you is; would you like to continue this arguement of the simple subject that just because I don't have a college degree in nuclear physics, I do have a right to have an opinion about it? Or perhaps we can just agree to disagree on anything I say.

1 flew over
27th September 2013, 06:53
I believe some one made a comment to the effect of no animals or fauna had died at Chernoble. (sp sorry) That would likely not be true. But it would not likely be able to be determined exactly how many animals had died as humans could not even go into ground zero for a long time. Even in a suite, they could not be at ground zero for 15 minutes. It was too much radiation to be absorbed.

you make some absolute statements in the above post, statements that need backing up.

answer me this: what were the radiation levels at Chernobyl? (at the reactor during the failure, outside the reactor during the failure, 1000 meters from the reactor duriing the failure; 1 week after the failure out side the sarcophagus, 1000 meters from the sarcophagus etc.. any would do)

Hi Guys:peace:

Just finished watching a fascinating video called The Battle of Chernobyl. I found it very well done and much more factually done than anything that you will normally get out of the western media. Among others it has quite a bit of current input by Michail Gorbichov, someone who at this point would gain very little by trying to deceive. It is a fascinating documentary about how close the world came and how many lives were lost in an attempt to keep Chernobyl from becoming a truly enormously disastrous event. Documentation has shown that the actual cost of Chernobyl was thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It can be found at http://documentarystorm.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/ . Please watch the video before you start to rebuff me on it.

Just for the a little perspective; I worked at the nuclear test site in southern/central Nevada during the summers for about 8 years while going to college and grad school. I wore a radiation safety badge to monitor my exposure levels and swapped it out every week and it was checked every day when working in some areas. There were times when working in a “hot” area, I would wear very tightly woven coveralls, booties, gloves, hood and a face shield/respirator all taped together at the seams while in these areas. I was quite happy when my children were born with only one head and two feet and hands each.

Early in the 20th century many women developed lip and or tongue cancer when they would lick their brushes to help create a sharp point while painting radium on watch dials so they could be seen in the dark. They would sometimes paint their fingernails with it so they would also glow. The bosses of course would not handle the stuff and told the women that it was perfectly safe. Male dominance is not a new thing.

Many people have had barium used in medical diagnosis by drinking it or having it used as an enema. These are called upper or lower gastrointestinal series. Crazy part is the rest of the vial is now considered a nuclear hazardous waste and has to be disposed of very specifically even though the rest of it is now excrements from inside a human body. It has been and still is used in quite a few medical procedures from the above listed to gum disease diagnosis to cancer treatment and many other. X-rays do not easily pass through the molecularly dense barium.

So once again the truth lies somewhere in between or across the entire range. Radiation is a part of nature, some types are necessary for life, some is not dangerous and some is deadly lethal and can kill absolutely everyone around it in minutes. It might be wise to know which are which.

Be Well
1 Flew over

TargeT
27th September 2013, 13:00
Documentation has shown that the actual cost of Chernobyl was thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It can be found at http://documentarystorm.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/ .

Please find this documentation and discover it's validity (or non-validity, as it's based on a novel with no peer review or fact checking done whatsoever (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62648-Dear-Bill-Ryan-Would-you-PLEASE-watch-the-Galen-Winsor-Nuclear-Scare-Scam-lectures--&p=720952&viewfull=1#post720952))

Chernobyl was a disaster, many people died, hundreds at the scene of the accident due to the explosion and quite a few from radiation. Other than that the whole thing has been ultra blown out of proportion and the lie has been repeated so many times it's taken as fact; when a little research is done you'll find the lie is built on the back of a novel translated from Russian and published in a journal that gave it the "look" of being a peer reviewed scientific paper, but it wasn't and the journal has stated that.

a well put together film based on false information will be very convincing, but that does not make it true, check the sources and references of the info.


What this thread is attempting to do is bring to light the fact that low levels of radiation are healthy for people and should not be feared, high levels are bad for you, that is not in dispute, Chernobyl had high levels at the sarcophagus for a short while & it was most definitely dangerous, but the "fall out" from Chernobyl was actually not bad due to it's low levels of radiation, in fact it could be categorized as "good" (though no studies have been done to show that, at least not that I am aware of).

Atlas
27th September 2013, 14:39
Radiation damages the cells that make up the human body. Low levels of radiation are not dangerous, but medium levels can lead to sickness, headaches, vomiting and fever. High levels can kill you by causing damage to your internal organs. Exposure to radiation over a long time can cause cancer.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69402000/jpg/_69402333_01979.jpg

TargeT
27th September 2013, 14:56
Exposure to radiation over a long time can cause cancer.



exposure to radiation at certain mid-high levels... yes

at low levels it makes you have an exponentially LOWER cancer rate!

Atlas
27th September 2013, 16:30
From Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (http://www.rpii.ie/Your-Health/Typical-questions-about-your-health.aspx):

How does ionising radiation affect the human body?

The effects of ionising radiation on the human body depend on the quantities of ionising radiation received. In general, when ionising radiation enters the body it deposits some of its energy in human tissue typically by ionising atoms or possibly breaking the bonds of a molecule. These chemical changes may damage the tissue which may not be repaired properly. In time, the damaged tissue may become a cancer.

What are the effects of very high doses?

In big enough quantities - i.e. those encountered by being very close to the site of a severe nuclear accident or explosion, such as the fire-fighters in the Chernobyl accident - ionising radiation can destroy human cells at a faster rate than they can be replaced by the natural regeneration of cells that occurs continually in the body. There is a high risk that this can cause serious illness and even death.

What are the effects of medium doses?

At medium doses, that is, those encountered by being exposed to a large source of radiation for a long period i.e. high radon concentrations in your home for a number of years, there is a medium risk that this may eventually lead to cancer several to forty years later.

What are the effects of low doses?

At low doses, that is, those typically encountered if you have low concentrations of radon in your home, there is a small risk that the damage caused to human cells will lead to cancer.

Is there a proven link between ionising radiation and cancer?

Yes, there is a general scientific consensus that ionising radiation can trigger changes in human tissue that can, in some circumstances, mutate into cancer. The risk rises in line with increased exposure to ionising radiation, in the same way that the risk of skin cancer grows with increased exposure to the sun’s rays.

Is natural radiation less harmful than radiation from artificial sources?

No. For a given amount of radiation, there is no difference between the harm caused by natural or artificial radiation.

TargeT
27th September 2013, 17:28
general scientific consensus

yep, those same 3 words told us that global warming was going to kill the world by 2020 or some crap....


in science, there is no such thing as consensus, it is either proved one way or the other, if you get both results you keep trying till you can get empirical results with a solid theory backing them.

What your entire post above is called: Appeal to authority (a logical fallacy)

Atlas
27th September 2013, 18:26
general scientific consensus

yep, those same 3 words told us that global warming was going to kill the world by 2020 or some crap....


You don't even have an other-than-scientific consensus to back up your health-benefit-from-radiation claims

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland never said global warming to kill the world by 2020, your imagination is the only one to say this.

You can't just say science is wrong and I am right, if you have better arguments then prove it, but of course, you don't have any...

1 flew over
27th September 2013, 18:50
[QUOTE=1 flew over;735867]What this thread is attempting to do is bring to light the fact that low levels of radiation are healthy for people and should not be feared, high levels are bad for you, that is not in dispute, Chernobyl had high levels at the sarcophagus for a short while & it was most definitely dangerous, but the "fall out" from Chernobyl was actually not bad due to it's low levels of radiation, in fact it could be categorized as "good" (though no studies have been done to show that, at least not that I am aware of).

TargeT

Factually I have no intention or desire to spend the time and energy to do a “fact check” to try to prove anything to you. Science cannot prove anything it can only give levels of certainty or probabilities of repeatability. It can only disprove absolutes.

I will leave others who watch the video to form their own opinions and make up their own minds as to what actually makes sense to them. Gorbichov himself said that they do not have the funding to do much more on it. I will leave the fact checking to the Russians who completely shut down the facility rather than try to even clean up the area. Oh no, let’s leave it to France to prove or even release existing data about the effects of fallout after all they only get around 75% of their power from nukes.

I worked in a radiation area. I lost both my father and brother to cancer, both worked at the test site. Can anyone “prove” that their involvement in radioactive environments caused their cancer? Probably not. Because as long as there are enormous amounts of money involved in production of energy, either fossil fuels or nuclear, there will always be ”scientists” who are willing to skew their findings for their own purpose. There will be highly paid lobbyists that are willing to sell their soul and their planet for money. There will be commissioners, congressmen and senators who are willing to turn the heads or write laws to promote whoever or whatever pays them well at the time. The U S Government, the best system of government that money can buy. To hell with "we the people".

Would you please post all the pier reviewed documents revealing that low levels or radiation are good for people and please do not go into that we all need sunshine to be healthy.

Given all of the above, I am still a proponent of nuclear power but it must be used intelligently, the industry may or may not be capable of doing that. I prefer renewable, it has high front end costs but very low impact and over the years will pay for themselves. I personally think that fossil fuels and their procurement are killing our planet and its people, and I own stocks from oil discovery and drilling companies.

Your mileage may vary.
Be Well

1 Flew Over

TargeT
27th September 2013, 18:52
general scientific consensus

yep, those same 3 words told us that global warming was going to kill the world by 2020 or some crap....


You don't even have an other-than-scientific consensus to back up your health-benefit-from-radiation claims

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland never said global warming to kill the world by 2020, your imagination is the only one to say this.

You can't just say science is wrong and I am right, if you have better arguments then prove it, but of course, you don't have any...

we have some good direct testimony here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62648-Dear-Bill-Ryan-Would-you-PLEASE-watch-the-Galen-Winsor-Nuclear-Scare-Scam-lectures--&p=723800&viewfull=1#post723800

we have the 10,000 person exposure case study here: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

areas of the US that have a higher natural background radiation level also have a lower average cancer percentages.

You and I have gone back and forth on this, you just choose not to read what I present, If your are interested you can find the stuff just like I did, it's not hidden any further than the keyboard in front of you, there's plenty of info in the nuclear scam (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-) & hormesis (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation&p=736068&highlight=hormesis#post736068) threads.


Can anyone “prove” that their involvement in radioactive environments caused their cancer?

see above for a 10,000 person, 20 year case study that "proves" that low level radiation is very very healthy for you.

if your relatives had actually been exposed to radiation they would have been better off. As you worked in the industry yourself you know hte DRASTIC measures they go through to avoid exposure, I bet your relatives were exposed to less radiation than the average person is due to this (and suffered accordingly).

for the past 6 months I have been wearing a polished piece of uranium ore around my neck, this is how confident I am in the information I have found by UNBIASED research.

I am not alone in this, I just apparently am the only one willing to try and show people the reality of the situation.

Kimberley
27th September 2013, 19:21
TagetT you know I am with you on this. I for one am not going to try to convince anyone of anything. Several of us have gathered a lot of evidence that supports Galen Winsor's claims and now it is available for anyone else to go through it all and come to their own conclusions.

I no longer hold the fear based thoughts I use to have in the radiation arena. I am thankful for that and would love every one to have the same peace, however I only have control over me :-)

I do want to add one last thing. Read Dr Bruce Lipton's book "The Biology of Belief" or listen to some of his lectures found all over the web. What we believe has the most power over what we experience.

And do not believe me for one second...I know nothing. :-)

Much love to us all! :grouphug:

Atlas
27th September 2013, 19:50
we have some good direct testimony here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62648-Dear-Bill-Ryan-Would-you-PLEASE-watch-the-Galen-Winsor-Nuclear-Scare-Scam-lectures--&p=723800&viewfull=1#post723800

we have the 10,000 person exposure case study here: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

areas of the US that have a higher natural background radiation level also have a lower average cancer percentages.

You and I have gone back and forth on this, you just choose not to read what I present, If your are interested you can find the stuff just like I did, it's not hidden any further than the keyboard in front of you, there's plenty of info in the nuclear scam & hormesis threads.

I read all of this, and my conclusion is: there is NO proven benefit. Are two BIASED threads a consensus ?

Why won't you answer 1 flew over's request:

Would you please post all the pier reviewed documents revealing that low levels or radiation are good for people

Here:

Title: Even low-level radioactivity is damaging
Source: University of South Carolina
Author: Steven Powell
Date: Nov. 13, 2012
Broad analysis of many radiation studies finds no exposure threshold that precludes harm to life

Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation had small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe that have very high natural background radiation as a result of the minerals in the ground there [...]

[Timothy Mousseau, a biologist in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina] and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. [...]

The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. [...]

The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

“There’s been a sentiment in the community that because we don’t see obvious effects [...],” said Mousseau. “But when you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects.”

[...] “With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there’s an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it’s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level,” he said. “But they’re assuming the natural background levels are fine.”“And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports.”

Full article: www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5214#.UkXk8H9j1b7 (http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5214#.UkXk8H9j1b7)

panopticon
28th September 2013, 09:00
Just finished watching a fascinating video called The Battle of Chernobyl. I found it very well done and much more factually done than anything that you will normally get out of the western media. Among others it has quite a bit of current input by Michail Gorbichov, someone who at this point would gain very little by trying to deceive. It is a fascinating documentary about how close the world came and how many lives were lost in an attempt to keep Chernobyl from becoming a truly enormously disastrous event. Documentation has shown that the actual cost of Chernobyl was thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It can be found at http://documentarystorm.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/ . Please watch the video before you start to rebuff me on it.


G'day 1 flew over,

Thanks for the video link.
I hadn't seen that one before and enjoyed hearing the perspective on the accident from a number of persons who were directly involved.
In particular it was interesting to hear Gorbachev talk about how little he had been told about the accident until a few days later.

Seems as though it doesn't matter what political system or what culture a nuclear accident happens in.
Some vested interest will try to hush it up as much as possible.

Also interesting to hear the same metallic taste being spoken about by the liquidators etc at Chernobyl as at Fukushima and 3 Mile.

Here's the video for those who didn't follow the link:

FdMLFJJyWnM
BTW this is from 2006 and the new sarcophagus still isn't finished (last estimate I read puts it in October 2015). For more information on the New Safe Confinement (NSC) Structure visit here (http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/). Here's a quick overview of the new structure:

GdXBaBbqpHs
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

1 flew over
28th September 2013, 17:55
for the past 6 months I have been wearing a polished piece of uranium ore around my neck, this is how confident I am in the information I have found by UNBIASED research.



TargeT

I have read everything on this thread including the links. I will now start reading the nuclear scam & hormesis threads info elsewhere in PA.

I lived in southern Nevada throughout my youth and then moved to the mountains of Colorado where I participated in mountaineering, climbing, mountain rescue, back country as well as downhill skiing and generally hanging out and backpacking at high altitude. Being a young male at the time I never used sun block so sunburned (radiated) myself many times. Hell, only wimps and dermatologists wear sunblock. Now as I move into old fartdom I, my sister and my mother who has blessedly moved into ancient fartdom, all go in every couple of years and have those pesky skin cancers removed from our faces, shoulders and backs. Humm, must have been the water. So far only one of mine has been melanoma and it was cut out fairly early, so I am not a big proponent of your “a little radiation is always a good thing” hypothesis.

As we both know the blessing and curse of the information age is that we can always find plenty of info to justify what we each care to believe. Hell, you of course know that the holocaust never actually happened; I’ll send you a passel of links. Yea, you becha.

I will read the above mentioned links and will report back to you. In the mean time I wish you well with your uranium pendant. We each form our opinions based on our own experience, knowledge and education self or inputted. Peace Brother.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

TargeT
28th September 2013, 18:04
You're presuming that cancer is caused solely or mostly by radiation, this is an entirely different subject, but my current understanding of cancer is that it is a cellular reaction to fungal growth, something that our bodies mostly take care of themselves but since we tax.our systems so heavily with processed foods, preservatives, vaccines, etc etc,, cancer is now much more prevalent.

Again, off topic; but one thing radiation does is eradicate fungus & stimulate the immune system.

Anyway, best to find this for your self, the info is definitely out there

1 flew over
28th September 2013, 18:26
[QUOTE=1 flew over;735867]


G'day 1 flew over,

Thanks for the video link.
I hadn't seen that one before and enjoyed hearing the perspective on the accident from a number of persons who were directly involved.
In particular it was interesting to hear Gorbachev talk about how little he had been told about the accident until a few days later.

Seems as though it doesn't matter what political system or what culture a nuclear accident happens in.
Some vested interest will try to hush it up as much as possible.

Panopticon

Thank you for your added input concerning the Chernobyl facility. From the website it looks like it is progressing well. But without being able to read Russian it is a bit difficult for me to follow. In my opinion it is good to see that something is being done to isolate the high level area. There must be someone who thinks that there is a reason to contain the old core.

As you mentioned vested interest will try to hush it up and the media will try to instill fear and a concept of impending doom in everyone. What a strange world in which we live. As I said before; somewhere in between probably lays the truth.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

1 flew over
28th September 2013, 19:22
You're presuming that cancer is caused solely or mostly by radiation, this is an entirely different subject, but my current understanding of cancer is that it is a cellular reaction to fungal growth, something that our bodies mostly take care of themselves but since we tax.our systems so heavily with processed foods, preservatives, vaccines, etc etc,, cancer is now much more prevalent.

TargeT

Just can’t let it rest, huh?

Now you are going to try to say those of us of Northern European decent who genetically lack much melanin(natures sunblock) in our skin throughout history when we migrate to sunnier areas we do not develop skin cancers? I really don’t care if farther down the chain cancer is caused by a fungus, different discussion. When we damage our epidermis by over radiating it then maybe it loses its ability to fight off the fungus. The inherent function of the skin to protect us on the outside while keeping the inside where it belongs. It loses part of that ability due to damage and one of the end products of that damage is called skin cancer. For this discussion I really don’t care if somewhere in the middle of the process it is caused by fungus or by being smeared with cherry flavored Jello.

The current massive use of pesticides, additives, genetic engineering, and processing does nothing to explain the skin cancer in those who lived on small farms, grew and cooked their own foods like my parents or myself who eats almost no processed, GMO or heavy additive laden food. Probably 80% of everything I eat is organically grown and cooked at home. Skin cancer has existed for generations.

As I said good luck with your uranium pendant.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

onawah
28th September 2013, 19:46
I for one have been very grateful to Target for his patience and perseverance in presenting information that is very much worth considering.
The example he sets for other Avalonians for the use of tact and diplomacy is admirable.
I don't think that hostile questions like "Just can't let it rest, huh?" are appropriate here or anywhere on the forum.

panopticon
28th September 2013, 20:09
From the website it looks like it is progressing well. But without being able to read Russian it is a bit difficult for me to follow.


G'day 1 flew over,
The site also has articles (though not all) in English.
For example:
The first stage of 3rd lifting of the NSC Arch’s Eastern part was performed (http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1074:vikonano-pershij-etap-3-go-pidjomu-skhidnoji-chastini-arki-nbk-ua&catid=100&Itemid=11&lang=en)

Cheers,
Pan

Atlas
28th September 2013, 22:10
1 flew over, you read my mind.



TargeT

Just can’t let it rest, huh?

As I said good luck with your uranium pendant.

1 flew over
29th September 2013, 01:39
From the website it looks like it is progressing well. But without being able to read Russian it is a bit difficult for me to follow.


G'day 1 flew over,
The site also has articles (though not all) in English.
For example:
The first stage of 3rd lifting of the NSC Arch’s Eastern part was performed (http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1074:vikonano-pershij-etap-3-go-pidjomu-skhidnoji-chastini-arki-nbk-ua&catid=100&Itemid=11&lang=en)

Cheers,
Pan

Pan

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it. From watching the first one you sent I could see that it was going to be a brilliant bit of very complex and precise engineering. It is really good to see it progressing as planed.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

TargeT
29th September 2013, 23:07
good luck with your uranium pendant.


As perception rules our universe and grammar our communication; I will choose to perceive what was typed here in its grammatically correct form.

thank you for the consideration.


a parting thought:

while it is more comfortable to discuss ideas with those that agree, or mostly agree with you on the topic; no real progress or change or true understanding can be obtained.

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." - Albert Einstein

panopticon
30th September 2013, 01:00
while it is more comfortable to discuss ideas with those that agree, or mostly agree with you on the topic; no real progress or change or true understanding can be obtained.


I agree completely with what you've said here TargeT.
It is only through looking at things from a variety of perspectives that understanding can start to emerge.
Well said.
-- Pan

Bill Ryan
30th September 2013, 02:49
-------

To Kimberley and anyone else frequently posting on this thread: can someone kindly propose a change of thread title?

It's simple for the mods to amend it. The title should reflect the substance of the thread and also make the topic easily searchable.

The reason for my suggestion is of course that I commented on the video over a month ago. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62648-Dear-Bill-Ryan-Would-you-PLEASE-watch-the-Galen-Winsor-Nuclear-Scare-Scam-lectures--&p=719815&viewfull=1#post719815) I've not been posting on the thread in the last few weeks, but I fully support the thread and the intelligent discussion to be found here.

1 flew over
30th September 2013, 05:56
good luck with your uranium pendant.


As perception rules our universe and grammar our communication; I will choose to perceive what was typed here in its grammatically correct form.

thank you for the consideration.


a parting thought:

while it is more comfortable to discuss ideas with those that agree, or mostly agree with you on the topic; no real progress or change or true understanding can be obtained.

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." - Albert Einstein

TargeT

Returning to my earlier post:



I will read the above mentioned links and will report back to you. In the mean time I wish you well with your uranium pendant. We each form our opinions based on our own experience, knowledge and education self or inputted. Peace Brother.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

I hope that you can see that I will continue in my education of the area and will alter my viewpoint as I see fit not as I am told. Hopefully you do not read anything else into what was said.

Do I agree with what you propose? No, I don't. My personal experience leads me to a different viewpoint and as you say "while it is more comfortable to discuss ideas with those that agree, or mostly agree with you on the topic; no real progress or change or true understanding can be obtained" I agree and follow that statement.

I have said all I care to in this area.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

ljwheat
20th October 2013, 04:27
I also have spent hundreds of hours looking for, and finding evidence to substantiate Galan Winsor’s whistle blowing after being duped by the NRC, and now the outflow of whistle blowers, seemingly coming out of the wood work now days, that many have built there careers out of,and on the back of there risk taking and doing the right thing for humanity…

This is why I for one, wanted to have Bill voice on this topic -- as most of the population, will not listen to reason or a change in a firmly held belief with out a authority of some note ---- that has made that step first..

My intentions were sincere, in breaking the hold of matrix controlled belief system that dominate our lives’ since birth. Nuclear scam and its iron hold on the worlds belief in the lie’s of the NRC are still in firm control.

I guess this thread should have stayed in the category of information only. Let the individual reading choose what is or is not worth taking what has been painstakingly gathered for all our benefit.

When one is feeling threatened or has to defend a long held belief, the mind its held in --- will shut down, and reject every words not in line with itself. I am no different, so I understand the heart felt resistance to all that’s been presented. In the end it all comes down to freewill.

And the right to believe in anything we like. Period.
And this is MHO, and thanks to Bill and all of Avalon for giving us the opportunity to voice it.. Thank you JOHN XX

heyokah
19th December 2013, 15:46
Might drop this post here as well.



"Don't let nuclear fear-mongering cloud your judgement."

"Don't let non-nuclear fear-mongering cloud your judgement."


This asks for a lot of discernment...... and hard scientific fact and even harder answers.....



These two articles have been posted here before.

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html
BUSTED!!!!


"Federal government" BUSTED for forcing American nuclear industry to become a ticking time bomb

Jim Stone, Updated on July 22, 2013

Americans have been told their nuclear waste must go somewhere. Americans have been told their spent reactor fuel needs to be stored inside a mountain in the desert, where it will sit as a threat and menace to the world for millions of years. Americans have been told there is nothing they can do about it. But what if they have been told a lie? What if that "spent fuel" was not spent at all? What if a technology existed which allowed the same fuel to be used over and over, twenty times in fact, and expended so fully that fuel rods would be safe enough to handle directly out of the reactor? Think any "spent fuel pools" would be full? And even if this technology never existed,

What if foreign nations, (France was one) offered to buy this fuel from America for billions of dollars only to have the American Government refuse the offer for no reason at all? Certainly allowing France to have it would solve the problem of getting rid of it. And the final question, WHY would the American Government want so much nuclear material sitting around the country - enough to make countless atomic bombs - only to have it become a threat to America's national security? Could it be that for many years America has not had a legitimate government, and instead has had a band of invaders in power who have intentionally set America up for a fall? After reading this report, I believe you will be inclined to think so.

This report consists of hard scientific fact and even harder answers.

During my journey of discovery in my investigation into the Fukushima disaster, I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked in the nuclear industry during America's glory days, an engineer who earned GE over 100 patents. He was one of the engineers who designed Fukushima, so naturally when conducting an investigation into such a disaster a journalist would want that type of reference. He was surprised when my prior study of reactor systems was so thorough that he had no information about Fukushima I did not already dig up, and he was very surprised when I told him details about the inner workings of his own reactor design he never expected anyone in the media to know.

When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing new, he began to talk about an entirely different subject. He began his new direction in the discussion with the phrase "My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order
(http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/order.html)
Here is what followed that introductory line, and an enormous reason why Americans need to seriously question the current government structure and possibly start over.

"I started in the American nuclear program all the way back at the time of the Manhattan project, and have been involved in reactor design and nuclear engineering my whole life. There was one answer we all searched for, and it was how to close the nuclear loop.
When a reactor such as a boiling water reactor uses fuel, the waste products, which are highly radioactive isotopes that have a different fission characteristic than the original fuel, build up in the fuel and change the nature of the nuclear reaction. A reactor such as a boiling water reactor can only use the fuel until it gets contaminated by these isotopes enough to change the nature of the nuclear reactions taking place. The reaction environment inside a boiling water reactor is only one such environment which will work to trigger a chain reaction, and if that spent fuel is put into a reactor made from different materials, those materials can favor the burning of the isotopes which interfere with the chain reactions in the boiling water reactor and use these interfering isotopes as fuel until they are consumed. After this process, which restores the fuel to it's original state is complete, the fuel can go back into the boiling water reactor and used as new with no reprocessing - the exact same rods can be exchanged between reactors.

We perfected the second reactor design which used liquid sodium as a coolant and the reactor ran much hotter - 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor instead of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which produced steam outside the reactor for use in producing electricity. The temperature difference and coolant characteristics in the complimentary reactor facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction - the boiling water reactor produced electricity while producing unwanted isotopes, and the sodium cooled reactor produced electricity while burning the unwanted isotopes out. This process could be repeated 20 times, and when it was finished the fuel was DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it's radiological potential was used up. It was a clean energy dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!"

He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all, and after I questioned him about exactly how safe, said you could safely sleep on it. I questioned him several times, saying he must be exaggerating, but he said ALL radiological potential was used, and the fuel was completely inert at the end of the final cycle.

Many people know about the liquid sodium breeder reactor developed by General Electric in the late 1970's but few people know the real story about this reactor, which this engineer developed. To back stab the public image of this reactor, it was stated that it's rods would stick and that liquid sodium was too dangerous to use as a coolant. But this engineer, the man who developed it, stated that this media campaign was a pure psy op which like many things the media and government says had no truth to it at all.

He then went on to lament about what a waste of money it was to have the technology banned because nuclear fuel is expensive and they were only able to use it to about five percent of its total potential without implementing this technology. He lamented the fact that his life's greatest accomplishment got banned for no good reason, and it was a tremendous waste of money to not use the technology his team developed. Electricity would have been cheap. So cheap that homes would not have been heated with oil or natural gas, electricity would have been the only sensible choice. Furthermore, with a reduction in the price of electricity by at least 10X, electric cars would have quickly become a standard.

This would have been America's free energy future, with the only real cost being maintenance of infrastructure.

He was sad that we were now paying too much for electricity. I guess that's how an engineer thinks. He had read my article about Fukushima and liked it, so it is an easy guess that his eyes were open to the global conspiracy. But I think he missed the obvious in what he said.

Here is what I think about this technology being banned, and it has nothing to do with preservation of resources or free energy.

Nuclear reactors are huge. They have an enormous amount of nuclear material in them. One boiling water reactor core the size of the ones at Fukushima, which have a thermal potential of three gigawatts and an electrical generating capacity of one gigawatt can easily hold enough fissionable material to make many atomic bombs. And with the technology that makes re-using that fuel illegal, it builds up in the cooling pools at a rate of 25 tons per electrical gigawatt YEAR. This means that after 40 years of fuel buildup even small 500 megawatt facilities have approximately a million pounds of highly radioactive fuel sitting in their pools waiting for the right combination of problems to cause a disaster.
Because the Japanese were at least allowed by their government to use a reprocessing technology inferior to what this engineer spoke of, Fukushima only had approximately 250,000 pounds of "spent" fuel at each reactor site, which remained intact throughout the disaster. But because in America no reprocessing is allowed at all in any form, the fukushima equivalents in America, such as TVA operated Browns Ferry and NSP operated Prairie Island have no fewer than two million pounds of "spent" fuel at each reactor site, which means that Browns Ferry alone could, in a worst case scenario, far exceed the damage done by Fukushima.

Contrary to what the scamming mainstream press has reported, Fukushima reactor 3 was destroyed entirely while at 3,000 PSI (far beyond specifications) which resulted in a complete core expulsion. This threw approximately 100,000 pounds of fuel into the environment, much of it in the form of brown dust that badly contaminated the entire surrounding area and was found around the world. Seldom reported in the press is the fact that the Fukushima site was so badly contaminated that it could not be approached, and remote control and robots were used in the months following the disaster to get the radiation down to a survivable level after the first three people to explore the site died. At 100,000 pounds of expelled material, reactor 3 could have produced at most 2 percent of the total contamination possible from a large American nuclear facility. This puts the possible disaster from Browns ferry at 50 to 100 times worse than Fukushima. Multiply that by Prairie Island and the over 100 other similar sized nuclear facilities in America and it is not hard to calculate that a serious national security threat exists.

America's nuclear waste problem was intentionally created

When GE and others designed the nuclear facilities both in America and abroad, they had calculated that they would indeed succeed in closing the nuclear loop. So they designed the nuclear facilities with an approximate 20X safety margin in the fuel pools, because they did not have a clear date on when the technology would be perfected. It was my impression from this engineer that they got it sooner than expected. So fortunately the fuel pools were over built, but despite being over built they were never designed to withstand the fuel burdens that would result from a political decision to destroy the closed loop fuel cycle technology altogether.

So now, 40 years after the ban, America has fuel pools around the country that are so full that they have exceeded even the extremely generous safety margins they were originally designed to have, and even modest pools often have over 400 tons of highly active isotope ridden "spent" fuel in them.

Having functional fuel pool cooling systems was never intended to be necessary. GE and others wanted only a fractional core of fuel sitting in a pool at any one time, with at most one or two entire cores, not 15 or 20. If all cooling systems failed with only the intended maximum of one or two cores sitting in a pool there would be no boiling of the water in the pool, no pending disaster possible from equipment failure no matter how severe. But the way it is now, if there is any sort of attack or disaster which prevents fuel pool maintenance at any of the facilities in America for a period exceeding three days, the water will boil off, the fuel will catch fire and a nuclear disaster of unimaginable magnitude far in excess of Fukushima will take place. And it never needed to be this way, in fact, the situation is criminal.

Foreign nations offered help, but the American government said NO

Upon recognizing the lunacy of America's Federally mandated nuclear sabotage, countries like France and Germany offered to buy America's 5% spent fuel for billions of dollars. They were not held political hostage by a hostile government, and could certainly use a source of cheap fuel. But rather than accept this offer,the American government mandated NO transport of the fuel to foreign nations, no further use whatsoever. American nuclear facilities were forced by Federal regulation to use approximately 5 percent of the fuel's radiological potential, leaving 95 percent of the radiological hazard remaining, and subsequently forced to keep it in a fuel pool that needs continuous maintenance. While arguing against this report, shills have said it was the import/export restrictions which caused such a dangerous situation in America, but since those laws were written by the same government that banned the closing of the "nuclear loop", the export restrictions are only a further indictment of the FED for causing this problem.

Simultaneous with the intentional building of the threat from having so much nuclear material sitting around came all the government scandals and lies about needing to put the fuel somewhere. Inside a mountain in the desert. Inside a dry cask. Maybe in the ocean, all the while the general American public was kept oblivious to the obvious answer: If they were not allowed to use it because of a nonsensical piece of legislation, why not let someone else have it, when other nations are willing to even pay for it?

Here is what I believe is the answer. And this answer needs to be spread far and wide.

Whatever you think of Kennedy, on the day of his death he was America's last hope. No President since has been anything other than a puppet for an enemy infiltrator, The enemy is not only inside the gates, it has been taking a paycheck from the American people for over 45 years.
Consider this: America's government intentionally put in place policies that de-industrialized America. That's an act of war. The American government put in place policies that intentionally destroyed America's schools. That's an act of war. And I consider forcing via mandate the buildup of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of nuclear warheads worth of perfectly good reactor fuel just waiting for a disaster to be an act of war as well - Only an enemy would intentionally mandate the creation of such a threat, who on earth would, other than someone who hated America? Not only did America lose a marvelous clean virtually free energy future, that future got converted into a threat that could very easily destroy the nation and take much of the world with it. All it would take to kill America, with America's nuclear facilities drastically overloaded with 5% spent fuel, is 150 smart bombs. One successful bombing run and it is over. And that's not even taking into consideration other disaster scenarios, such as earthquakes and computer virus attacks.

The enemy of America is now in complete control of the nation

Ever since Kennedy's assassination America has not had a true representative government, especially starting with Carter. When I worked for the NSA, I saw a few computers which were identical to the early vote counting computers, and they could be set to loop a single ballot over and over again. With a scammed vote, America got over-run by outsiders who wanted the country destroyed. Prior to 1973 America was only going upward, and anyone who wanted to see America destroyed or enslaved would never permit Americans to get virtually free energy. The enemy would lose oil profits. They would potentially lose control of energy, leaving the financial system the only means of forced social compliance outside of a hot war and the enemy wanted control options. True clean energy had to be stopped.

The enemy of America is a sinister enemy. It is a small group of religiously "elite" people who weaponize everything. They have weponized sympathy, victim status, water systems, vaccines, genetically modified organisms and even terror - anything they have been able to think of, and have used these things and many more to cause destruction. And the nuclear industry, now blocked from a dream come true technology, can be used as a weapon.

The truth in this is undeniable

There is plenty of proof. No shill can stop people from checking out the history of other nations, such as Germany, France and Russia offering America BILLIONS for this not so "spent" fuel, which can only sit as a hazard after a political decision banning technologies which allow for it's purification at the same time additional political decisions have banned it's export. This hazard has been unnecessarily and intentionally accumulating for years. It's the equivalent of keeping a 5,000 gallon tank of petrol in your bedroom. Better hope all is well with it.
I honestly feel that banning this miracle technology; you should have heard the sparkle, the awe in the old man's voice when he said they closed the "nuclear loop", and the sadness, despair and anger expressed at it's being banned; I feel it was an act of war against America. There were never any accidents associated with this technology, according to this engineer everything negative said about it was a bold faced lie spoken by people of ill intent. America's nuclear waste problem is not scientific, it is political.

I believe this nuclear engineer opened up and told me about this because I was the first journalist he ever encountered that actually understood nuclear technology. He knew I would understand what he said and subsequently bring this story to the public. But outside of making the public aware by telling his story in an article such as this, what more can I do?

-----


http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm

THE MYTH OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY
Bernard L. Cohen (1/3/1989)
By Bernard L. Cohen, Department of Physics, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.

(From Karl Otto Ott and Bernard I. Spinard, eds. Nuclear Energy
(New York: Plenum Press, 1985), pp. 355-365)

[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

Plutonium is constantly referred to by the news media as the most toxic substance known to man.'' Ralph Nader has said that a pound of plutonium could cause 8 billion cancers, and former Senator Ribicoff has said that a single particle of plutonium inhaled into the lung can cause cancer.
There is no scientific basis for any of these statements as I have shown in a paper in the refereed scientific journal Health Physics (Vol. 32, pp. 359-379, 1977).
Nader asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evaluate my paper, which they did in considerable depth and detail, but when they gave it a "clean bill of health'' he ignored their report. When he accuses me of "trying to detoxify plutonium with a pen,'' I offered to eat as much plutonium as he would eat of caffeine, which my paper shows is comparably dangerous, or given reasonable TV coverage, to personally inhale 1000 times as much plutonium as he says would be fatal, or in response to former Senator Ribicoff's statement to inhale 1000 particles of plutonium of any size that can be suspended in air.
My offer was made to all major TV networks but there has never been a reply beyond a request for a copy of my paper.
Yet the false statements continue in the news media and surely 95% of the public accept them as fact although virtually no one in the radiation health scientific community gives them credence.
We have here a complete breakdown in communication between the scientific community and the news media, and an unprecedented display of irresponsibility by the latter.
One must also question the ethics of Nader and Ribicoff; I have sent them my papers and written them personal letters, but I have never received a reply.

Let's get at the truth here about plutonium toxicity.

We begin by outlining a calculation of the cancer risk from intake of plutonium (we refer to it by its chemical symbol, Pu) based on standard procedures recommended by all national and international organizations charges with responsibility in this area, and accepted by the vast majority of radiobiomedical scientists.

1. ESTIMATE OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY FROM STANDARD PROCEDURES

The first step is to calculate the radiation dose in rem (the unit of dose) to each organ of the human body per gram of Pu intake.
According to ICRP (International Commission on Radiation Protection) Publication No. 19, about 25% of inhaled particles of the size of interest (0.5-5 [micro]m in diameter) deposit in the lung, and 60% of this is eliminated only with a 500-day half-life. From this information and the known rate and energy of [alpha -particle emission, we can calculate the radiation energy deposited in the lung, which is directly convertible to dose in rem.

According to ICRP Publication 19, 5% of inhaled Pu gets into the bloodstream from which 45% gets into the bone and an equal amount collects in the liver; the times required for elimination from these are 70 and 35 years, respectively.
This is all the information needed to calculate doses to bone and liver in rem per gram of Pu inhaled.

If Pu is ingested with food or water in soluble form, the ICRP estimates that 3 x 10^-5 (30 parts per million) gets through the intestine walls into the bloodstream.
From this and the information given above, calculation of rem to the bone and liver per gram of Pu ingested is straightforward. In addition, there is dosage to the gastrointestinal tract calculable by ICRP prescriptions.

Once the dose in rem is calculated, the next step is to convert this to cancer risk using the BEIR Report, the standard reference in this area produced by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
It recommends a model in which there is a 15-year latent period following exposure during which there are no effects, followed by a 30-year "plateau'' period during which there is a constant risk of 1.3 x 10^-6 (1.3 chances per million) per year per rem for lung cancer and 0.2, 1.0, and 0.3 x 10^-6 per year per rem for bone, gastrointestinal tract and liver* cancer, respectively.

For children less than 10 years old, these are divided by five, and for an older person, there is a calculable probability that death will result from other causes before the cancer develops.
With this information we can calculate the cancer risk as a function of age at intake. Averaging over ages, we obtain the average cancer risk per gram of Pu intake.

* In the BEIR Report, liver cancer is included among "all other'' for which the risk is 1.0 x 10^-6, the value used here is based partly on other information

TABLE I
Cancer Doses in Micrograms (Defined as the
Inverse of Risk per Microgram)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrance Mode 239-Pu Reactor-Pu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation (dust in air) 1300 200
Ingestion with food or water 6.5 x 10^6 1 x 10^6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The results are given in Table I for the most important isotope of Pu, 239-Pu, which contains 1 curie of radioactivity for each 16g, and for the mixture of Pu isotopes that would be commonly found in power reactors, which is 6 times more intensely radioactive (1 curie in each 2.5 g).
We refer to the latter as "reactor-Pu'' and use it in our discussions where appropriate.

Table I shows the inverse of the risk, which we call the "cancer dose.''
For example, we see that the risk of inhaling reactor-Pu is 1/200 per [micro]g, so if one inhales 10 [micro]g, he has one chance in 20 of developing cancer as a result.
Another application is that in a large population we may expect one cancer for every 200 [micro]g inhaled, so if a total of 1000 [micro]g is inhaled by people, we may expect 5 cancers (regardless of the number of people involved).

Estimates of cancer doses of Pu have also been derived using different methods by the British Medical Research Council in its report "The Toxicity of Plutonium,'' and by Dr. C.W. Mays (who developed some of the important basic information in his experiments on dogs) in a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA-SM-202/806), and they agree closely with Table I.
We see from Table I that Pu is dangerous principally when inhaled as a fine dust.
It is not very toxic when ingested with food or drink because of its very small probability of passing through the intestine walls into the bloodstream.
Pu forms large molecules, which have great difficulty in passing through membranes.

In addition to causing cancer, intake of plutonium can also cause genetic defects among progeny in the next 5-10 generations, but the total number of eventual genetic defects before they are bred out is only 20% of the number of cancers.
For simplicity we restrict our discussion to cancers, but the genetic effects can always be included by applying the 20% addition.

The estimates in Table I are based on data from radiation effects on humans as analyzed in the BEIR Report.
These include Japanese A-bomb survivors, miners exposed to radon gas, people treated for various maladies with radium or with X-rays, etc.
None of these effects were from Pu -- there is no evidence for any injury to humans from Pu toxicity.
However, there is a considerable amount of data from animal studies with Pu, and this is summarized for lung cancer in Fig. 1 where the line shows the estimate from our calculation. In general the agreement is quite reason

1. " Data from animal studies with Pu, summarized for lung cancer.''
The graph shows 40 data-points, with confidence intervals, from animal studies (dogs, mice, rats, rabbits) with a calculated line over them.
The x-axis, which is logarithmically scaled, is labeled "Dose to Lung (millions of
millirem)'' and the y-axis is labeled "Incidence of Lung Cancer (%)''.
Taking representative points from the calculated line in the figure, we get: (~0.3 Mmrem, ~1%), (~1.0 Mmrem, ~5%), (~10.0 Mmrem, ~38%), (~11.0 Mmrem, ~65%). Mmrem: millions of millirem.]

There has been a great deal of publicity about the high point for beagle dogs (the highest point in Fig.1) but we see that our curve passes within the error bars given by the authors.
One aspect of the experiment that is frequently overlooked is that the latent period for development of the cancers increased with decreasing dose, and in fact the dogs contributing to the point under discussion developed cancer rather late in life. If this effect is extrapolated to lower doses, the latent period for most doses usually considered would greatly exceed life expectancy, so the effects we derive in this paper would be substantially reduced.

2. CRITICISMS OF STANDARD PROCEDURES

There have been several criticisms of treatments like the one we have given.
The best known of these is the "hot-particle'' theory, which gives greatly increased effects (by a factor of 100,000) due to the fact that the Pu is not evenly distributed over the lung but is concentrated in particles, which give much higher than average doses to a few cells. This theory has been studied and rejected by the following groups:
o A Committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences especially assembled for this study in a report entitled "Health Effects of Alpha-emitting Particles in the Respiratory Tract.
o U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), a very distinguished group composed of about 70 in our nation's leading radiobiomedical research scientists, in NCRP Publication No. 46
o British Medical Research Council in "The Toxicity of Plutonium''
o U.K. National Radiological Protection Board in its Report R-29 and Bulletin No. 8 (1974)
o U.S. AEC in a very elaborate study, WASH-1320, authored by three of the world's leading researchers on Pu toxicity
o U.S. NRC in Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 76
o U.K. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution -- Sixth Report -- Nuclear Power and the Environment

One easily understood aspect of these criticisms is that there were about 25 workers at Los Alamos who inhaled varying amounts of Pu about 30 years ago, and according to the "hot-particle'' theory each should have experienced about 200 lung cancers, whereas there have been no lung cancers as yet among them.

According to our estimates in Table I, there is a 40% chance that one of them would have had lung cancer, so this is experimental evidence that Table I does not grossly underestimate the cancer risk from Pu intake.
[For more on the Los Alamos workers see George L. Voelz, Robert S. Grier, Louis H. Hempelmann, "A 37-Year Medical Follow-Up Of Manhattan Project Pu Workers'', Health Physics, Vol. 48, No. 3 (March 1985), pp. 249-259.]

Another criticism of the "hot-particle'' theory is that there are experiments on animals in which two groups were exposed to the same total amount of Pu but in one of them it was much more in the form of hot particles -- and that group experienced fewer cancers....
It was also pointed out that particles in the lung do not stay in one place but are constantly moving about so that their exposure does not fall on only a few cells.

After these rejections of the "hot-particle'' theory appeared, John Gofman, a former research scientist who has spent the past several years as the full-time leader of an antinuclear organization, came out with a new theory ascribing enhanced toxicity to Pu.
His paper was not written for a scientific journal, but was inserted in the congressional Record by Senator Gravel.
His basic premise was that smoking destroys the cilia, the fine hairs that stop dust particles from entering the bronchial region -- this much was well established -- and that Pu particles therefore remain in that region for a very long time, allowing their radiation to cause bronchial cancers.
This allows him to ignore the animal data as animals do not smoke. He also manages to explain the lack of lung cancers among the 25 Los Alamos workers by a combination of four improbable hypotheses, the failure of any one of which would destroy his theory.

There have been at least seven individual critiques of the Gofman theory. Perhaps the most telling criticism is that there was a series of experiments at New York University in which a number of graduate students inhaled a controlled amount of radioactive dust and the rate at which this dust was cleared from the bronchial region was directly determined by placing radiation detectors over their chests and measuring the radiation intensity as a function of time.
It was found that there was no difference between smokers and nonsmokers, and the experimenters concluded that smokers do more coughing and have increases mucous flow, which compensates for their lack of cilia.
In fact, if dust accumulated in the bronchial region of smokers in the manner
postulated by Gofman, their bronchial tubes would be completely closed and they would die by suffocation.

There were many more weak points in the details of the Gofman paper.
He misuses the BEIR Report, he miscalculates the area of the bronchial region by a factor of 17 and thereby incorrectly increases the toxicity by that factor, he misuses the ICRP lun model, etc. He even suggests that the great increase in lung
cancer in recent years may be due to Pu, but this increase has been steady since the 1930s whereas Pu-induced cancers should not have occurred until 1960. Moreover, the lung cancer increases have been in areas with chemical industry and high air pollution, and there has been no increase in areas downwind from the Nevada test site where Pu would have its maximum effect.

A relatively less publicized attack on the conventional approach to evaluating Pu toxicity is the "warm-particle'' theory of Edward Martell. He hypothesizes that natural radiation is one of the principal causes of lung cancer, but this idea has
not been accepted by the cancer research community.

K.Z. Morgan has proposed that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for Pu in bone might be 250 times larger than the usual value.
C.W. Mays, on whose experiments much of Morgan's hypothesis is based, reanalyzed Morgan's work and concluded that if his approach is correct, the increase should be only by a factor of 10.
There is experimental information on this from some supposedly "terminally ill'' patients injected with Pu in 1945-46 to study Pu metabolism.
Four of these are still alive and one who was injected with a rather large quantity
died of unrelated causes only in 1968.
If the RBE of Pu were 10 times the present value, there is a better than even chance that one of these five would have gotten bone cancer, but none did.
As our calculated inhalation effects are dominated by lung cancer, a factor of 10 increase in bone cancer risk would only double the total inhalation risk.

S.M. Wolfe, an employee of a Nader-sponsored group, drew far-reaching conclusions from the fact that 11 of the first 30 deaths in the US Transuranic Registry (a registry of people who have worked with plutonium) revealed cancers on autopsy, whereas based on listed cause-of-death for all U.S. males, only 6.2 of
each 30 deaths is from cancer.
His paper, which was never published in the scientific literature, received very wide
publicity in the news media. However, it turned out that autopsies were done preferentially on people who had died of cancer, and that explained the entire effect.
In addition, it was pointed out that Pu is expected to cause cancers of the lung, bone, and liver, whereas among the 11 cases there were no bone or liver cancers, and less than the expected number of lung cancers for a normal population. Needless to say, the news media never bothered to report that the Wolf paper was based on an incorrect premise.

In evaluating all of the criticisms outlined above, it is important to realize that they are actively considered every year by a committee of the ICRP and that they have repeatedly been rejected.
Likewise, the EPA, which has jurisdiction in the U.S., studied the matter and decided not to modify its standards.
No standard-setting or official study group in any country has given credence to any of these criticisms of the standard procedures weused in deriving Table I.

3. CONSEQUENCES OF PLUTONIUM DISPERSAL

It is clear from Table I that Pu is dangerous principally as an inhalant, so we now consider the consequences of a dispersal of Pu powder in a populated area.
The calculations are done with a standard meteorological model, in which the dust cloud moves with the wind dispersing in the downwind, crosswind, and vertical directions.
Meteorologists have determined the extent of dispersal as a function of wind velocity and atmospheric stability.
Figure 2 shows the results of calculations assigning the atmospheric stability most characteristic of each wind velocity. This is different between day and night, so separate curves are given for each.
These curves give the area within which various fractions,q/Q, of the dispersed Pu are taken in by a person inhaling at an average rate.
For example, we see from Fig. 2 that for a typical daytime 8 m/sec wind velocity, only in an area of 500 m^2 is as much as 10^-6 (one millionth) of thedispersed Pu inhaled. A typical city population is 10^-2 people/m^2, so there would
typically be about 5 people in this area.
Similarly, from Fig.2, about 60 people would inhale 10^-7, 700 people would inhale 10^-8, etc. of the dispersed Pu.

As we know the cancer risk per microgram of Pu inhaled from Table I, it is straightforward to calculate the total number of cancers expected per gram of Pu dispersed. When corrections are applied for the fraction of typical Pu powders that are in particles of respirable size, the efficiency of dispersal, the protection afforded by being inside buildings, and decreased breathing rates at night, the result is that we may expect about one eventual cancer for every 24 g of Pu dispersed, or about 19 fatalities per pound.
If there is a warning, as in a blackmail scenario, people can be instructed to breathe through a folded handkerchief or a thick article of clothing, with a resulting decrease in fatalities to 3 per pound dispersed.
Eventually, the Pu settles to the ground but it may then be blown up by winds. Meteorologists have also developed methods for calculating these effects ("deposition'' and "resuspension'').
Within the first few months this causes about one-third as many cancers as inhalation from the initial cloud.
Beyond this time period, resuspension is of much less and continually decreasing importance as the Pu becomes part of the soil.

2. Area over which the ratio of inhaled to dispersed Pu has values shown for q/Q versus wind velocity under typical day and night atmospheric conditions.''
The x-axis, which is logarithmically scaled, is labeled "Wind Velocity (meters/sec)'' and the y-axis is labeled "Area (meter^2)''.

Of course, 239-Pu lasts for tens of thousands of years, so let us consider its effects over this time period.
We know the amount of uranium in soil and we know now how much there is as
dust in the air, so we can estimate how much is inhaled per year -- it calculates out to be 1.3 x 10^-11 of that in the top 20 cm of soil. If this factor is applied to the Pu after it becomes part of the soil, we find that over the 25,000-year half-life
there will eventually be about one fatality per 2500 g of Pu dispersed.
Thus, we see that the long half-life is almost irrelevant; nearly all of the damage eventually done occurs very soon after dispersal.

A summary of all these effects of Pu dispersal is given inTable II.
It also includes plant uptake into food.
There is a great deal of information on uptake of Pu by plants both from
laboratory experiments and from several areas where an appreciable amount of Pu has gotten into the soil from bomb tests or from various research activities. Plant uptake is small for the same reason that Pu does not easily pass through the walls of the intestines -- it forms large molecules, which do not easily pass through membranes.
From Table II we see that the total eventual effect of Pu dispersal in a city is one fatality per 18 g dispersed without warning, or 25 fatalities per pound.

TABLE II
Summary of Fatalities per Gram
of Reactor-Pu Dispersed
-----------------------------------------------
Inhalation from cloud 0.042 (1/24)
Resuspension 0.014
Long Term 0.0004 (1/2500)
Plant uptake into food 0.002
Total 0.058 (1/18)
-----------------------------------------------

4. DANGERS OF PLUTONIUM DISPERSAL

The fear is sometimes expressed that the world may become "contaminated'' with 239-Pu. To evaluate this potentiality, we calculate that if all the world's present electric power were produced by fast breeder reactors in an equilibrium situation
where Pu is consumed as fast as it is produced, the total amount of 239-Pu existing in the world would be 2 x 10^8 curies.
By comparison, the radium (226-Ra) in each meter of depth of the earth's crust is 1.2 x 10^9 curies, so there is as much Ra in each 17 cm of depth as there would be 239-Pu in the whole world.
For ingestion, Ra is 40 times more toxic than Pu as it passes through the intestine walls much more easily. For direct inhalation, Ra is less hazardous than Pu, but it serves as a source of radon gas, which comes up out of the ground and mixes
with the air we breathe, and therefore is a serious inhalation hazard, so as material on the ground, Ra is a 40-fold greater inhalation hazard than Pu.

Thus, as a long-term hazard either for ingestion or for inhalation, Ra is 40 times worse than Pu; the total Pu in existence for an all-breeder power system would then be as dangerous as the Ra in each 4 mm of our soil. Of course, nearly
all of this Pu would be in reactors or in other parts of the nuclear industry, well isolated from the environment.

There is now a legal requirement on the allowable releases of Pu from nuclear plants, which is such that if all U.S. power were nuclear and derived from fast breeder reactors (they use the most Pu), the total releases would be about 0.6 g/year.
If we use table II, this would predict an average of 0.03 fatality/year, but that would be valid only if nuclear plants were in cities; as they are not, the expected effects are about 10 times less, or one fatality in 300 years.

Some perspective on this problem may be obtained by comparing the 0.6 g/year tht [sic] may some day be released by the nuclear industry with the amount of Pu that has been dispersed in the atmosphere in nuclear bomb tests, which is 5 million g.
Estimates on the same basis that we have been using predict about 200 U.S. fatalities to date from Pu releases in bomb tests, and 4000 in the world.
It also predicts about 200 fatalities worldwide from the reentry burn-up in 1964 of a space vehicle carrying a SNAP-9A 238-Pu-powered energy source.
It is important to keep in mind that all of these estimates are theoretical.
These is no direct evidence for Pu toxicity having caused serious injury to any human being, anywhere, ever.


The reason why the legal requirement on plutonium releases is so stringent is not because Pu is so dangerous, but because the technology is available for keeping the releases that low, and in fact this technology is very close to present practice.
Pu dust particles tend to stick to each other and their containers, so Pu is not easily dispersed. It is also very readily collected on filters; anywhere Pu powder is used, the air is exhausted through filters, which catch all but about one part per billion of the dust suspended in air.

Of course, the control measures are expensive and they increase the cost of nuclear electricity.
As previously noted, the reason they are required is not because Pu is so dangerous -- one fatality every 300 years is surely a trivial problem when burning coal, our only viable alternative to nuclear energy, is killing 10,000 people every year with its air pollution -- but because the public is afraid of plutonium.

Ralph Nader, former Senator Ribicoff, John Gofman, and their like have done their
work well, and the public is paying the price in its electric bills.

One often hears that in large-scale production of Pu we will be creating unprecedented quantities of a poisonous material. Because Pu is dangerous principally as an inhalant, we compare it in Table III with quantities of other poisonous inhalants produced in the U.S. We see that it is relatively trivial by
comparison.
Moreover, it should be noted that Pu is not easily dispersed whereas the others are gases and hence readily dispersible.
Of course, Pu released to the environment will last far longer than thesegases, which would be decomposed chemically, but recall from our earlier discussion that nearly all of the damage done in Pu dispersal is by the initial cloud of dust; all of the later resuspension and the thousands of years spent in the soil do far less damage.
It is thus not unfair to compare Pu with the poison gases, and we see from Table III that it will always be far less of a hazard.

TABLE III
Lethal Inhalation Doses Produced Annually in the
U.S. (x 10^12)
----------------------------------------------------------
Chlorine 400
Phosgene 18
Ammonia 6
Hydrogen cyanide 6
Pu if all U.S. power were from fast breeder reactors 1
----------------------------------------------------------

It is often argued that there is a great deal we do not know about Pu toxicity. While this may be true, one would be hard-pressed to name another public health issue that is as well understood and controlled.
Surely it would not be air pollution from burning coal, which is a million times more serious a problem.
Surely it is not food additives or insecticides or such [the dangers from these have also been greatly exaggerated] that may well be doing real harm to our health. Pu hazards are far better understood than any of these, and the one fatality per 300
years they may someday cause is truly trivial by comparison.

In spite of the facts we have cited here, facts well known in the scientific community, the myth of Pu toxicity lingers on.
The news media ignore us, and prefer to continue scaring the public at every opportunity.
They don't recognize the difference between political issues on which everyone is equally entitled to an opinion, and scientific issues, which are susceptible to
scientific investigation and proof.

The myth may linger forever.

----

Unbiased truthseekers, keen observers, members with an open mind (and there are plenty here on this forum), what a pitty you don't come to this thread.
I wonder why.


Great articles there, I copied them here for those that are afraid to click random links, very good addition to the thread.

ljwheat
19th December 2013, 16:22
778, . Very valid points - about the planet nothing has been added or taken away since it formed long ago. Evidence has shown the even volcano’s are not a bad thing either.

Sure you don’t want to get caught under it when it go’s off, plenty of collateral damage. But all the raw essential minerals including radio active ore’s replenish the earth that we as well as plant and animal life need to live on this rock.

Once these raw materials brake down, life flourishes just like in Japan after the bombs dropped life came rolling back. Those two city’s didn’t become dead zones for 5,000.000 years as we were lead to believe. Quite the opposite to place.

Russian accident and its now a dead zone, yet plant and animal have flourished beyond belief since the NRC decided to call it a dead zone, yet the same DNA and the building blocks of life, mock there fear scam clams, Sigh…

So this really got me thinking ---- if dead zones are only supported by fear of some idiot saying you have to live underground for 5 thousand years. A total lie. Then world War III will only kill those caught in the blast radius, and since there are more city’s than they have bombs. Life will go on and the dead zone’s will only exist in the heads of the NRC believers. And the only evidence of this possibility is in two city’s in Japan that thieve, yet today.
Any one ask the NRC to explain what happened in Japan and why dead zones are needed after a couple accidents?

And the literal thousand of above ground testing of A-bomb and H-bomb testing over the years combined would add up to over 20 time’s what is at a dead zone in Japan to day.

The evidence if kept in context and separated from the NRC Fear Scam, tells us a completely different story just as Galen Winsor so for told before the NRC scared the crappola out of people on this planet.

We’ve been blinded since birth, on many topic’s this one is a hug one. People already blind, then you add a blind fold of fear on top of that, then you can see the dilemma we face, So the rest of the world will still see us as blubbering idiots. And continue to run away from the NRC boggy man in the closets of their minds.

Its really not there fault, that’s why its called a rabbit hole, its deep and was put there over century’s, and some little puck is at the bottom still digging, and making it deeper yet. If you look at the bottom core of what is running this planet its only one thing.. Commerce -- consumption -- of energy. On all levels dig it up consume it, then burry it. On a planet where everything eats everything else to stay alive.

Galen Winsor one of the leader’s in his field, none greater with hands on first person ,,, Before the NRC turns whistle blower. The evidence of Japan two thriving city’s not dead for 5 thousand year. Laugh in the face of the NRC’s .. And their 6 decades of lie’s.

TargeT
19th December 2013, 16:57
778, . Very valid points - about the planet nothing has been added or taken away since it formed long ago. .

completely off topic side note:

I'm not so sure this is the case, the "expanding earth" theory seems very valid to me & has a lot of corroborating evidence (Dinosaurs and the shape of ocean trenches being the most obvious,, oil wells that refill themselves being the more modern)

anyway... good to see all the keyboard hammering we have done paid off for at least one person :)

778 neighbour of some guy
19th December 2013, 19:34
anyway... good to see all the keyboard hammering we have done paid off for at least one person

No hammering whatsoever was required to convince me, Scanners OP in the Scam thread was more then enough for me to open my eyes, Galen is a very convincing fellow in his presentations, but I don't think many people got on board of this particular train, hard case to get ones brain around I guess, perhaps drinking a gallon a day of demi water for a few months will convince them not everything is as they are told it is.

observer
25th December 2013, 15:25
[....snip]
I've heard (indirectly) from an apparently reliable source that they are Russian agents, and the entire story is bogus. Place that report in the category of 'witness testimony'.

Separately, here's my honest opinion of Galen Winsor.

There seem to be three possibilities (in no special order here) -->


He's a freak of nature (not an insult: there may be something remarkable about his body that most other bodies don't share)
He's lying or deluded (or has been paid to lie)
There's something about radiation that we don't yet understand.


What is being missed by those who hold strong positions in favor of low-levels of radiation is the historic perspective.

For those among us who have lived-through the advent of the nuclear age, accepting the concept that any level of radiation as a good thing falls into the category of the bait-and-switch policies of the nuclear industry - a process that has been on-going since the advent of the atomic age. It has been shown - through the process of time tested observations - that any prolonged exposer is not necessary a good thing.

The nuclear industry has historically confused the data, switched the statistics, paid-off politicians, and used every form of disinformation in their campaign to glorify the use of the atom. This cannot be denied by any member. To clearly understand what is being said, one must have lived the age of the atom from the beginning.

There may very well be some short-term benefits from low-level therapies, but for those of us who have lived-through the obscenities of nuclear proliferation, accepting these benefits with open arms is far beyond reason.

Research Resources:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an7EEd2ra0s

Within the first few minutes of the above video, David puts a clear perspective on exactly what I'm saying.

"The West Coast Is Being Fried With Nuclear Radiation" -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_xPXR32ZI

TargeT
25th December 2013, 17:14
Separately, here's my honest opinion of Galen Winsor.

There seem to be three possibilities (in no special order here) -->


He's a freak of nature (not an insult: there may be something remarkable about his body that most other bodies don't share)
He's lying or deluded (or has been paid to lie)
There's something about radiation that we don't yet understand.


To me this seems to indicate that you haven't reviewed the material presented, for example the buildings in Taiwan that had cobalt 60 put into them (on accident) and radiated tens of thousands of people for over a decade (9 to 22 years), and the fact that on average all of them were very significantly healthier than the general population (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/), i could go on but if you won't review the material it's kinda of pointless.

If you review the material this matter is conclusively resolved, low levels of radiation are not only natural but necessary for healthy living.

the old proverb holds true: Everything in moderation.




. It has been shown - through the process of time tested observations - that any prolonged exposer is not necessary a good thing.

you'r right, it's not a "good thing" its a GREAT thing... again I'll refer you to the Taiwan apartment buildings case (just for ease, since its linked above); there are many other cases as well over large population sections.



The nuclear industry has historically confused the data, switched the statistics, paid-off politicians, and used every form of disinformation in their campaign to glorify the use of the atom. This cannot be denied by any member. To clearly understand what is being said, one must have lived the age of the atom from the beginning.

There may very well be some short-term benefits from low-level therapies, but for those of us who have lived-through the obscenities of nuclear proliferation, accepting these benefits with open arms is far beyond reason.

ok, so you are EXACTLY RIGHT.. but also VERY wrong.

here's what I mean:

the nuclear industry has been obfuscating information to keep the people confused so no one would realize that every single "power plant" in the world is in reality a plutonium enrichment plant, power is almost a neglected side effect. Its very obvious when you look at it, for example: why would you have cooling towers if you were trying to make power? you would use that heat to spin MORE generators... not waste it.

There are ways to make power super efficiently and safely with isotopes, but it DOES NOT produce enriched uranium or plutonium at any level of efficiency.. the current reactors do, and that's about all they do (they are even called "breeder" reactors for this fact... it's SO IN YOUR FACE once you understand)


This cover up has your attitude working for it, it's really brilliant actually; it leverages the pitfalls of ego and the human mind perfectly to keep itself protected.


what we should be asking is this: why do we need so much enriched plutonium and uranium, no one is using nuclear weapons.... where is it going, what is it used for?

onawah
25th December 2013, 18:02
So why DO we need so much of it, and where IS it going, and what IS it used for?
I wonder if there is some kind of ET agenda here--perhaps it is being shipped offworld?
A good question for Simon, I would say.
Target, since you are so knowledgeable on this subject, would you be interested in asking Simon on his thread?
Thanks!




what we should be asking is this: why do we need so much enriched plutonium and uranium, no one is using nuclear weapons.... where is it going, what is it used for?

TargeT
26th December 2013, 16:51
So why DO we need so much of it, and where IS it going, and what IS it used for?
I wonder if there is some kind of ET agenda here--perhaps it is being shipped offworld?
A good question for Simon, I would say.
Target, since you are so knowledgeable on this subject, would you be interested in asking Simon on his thread?
Thanks!




what we should be asking is this: why do we need so much enriched plutonium and uranium, no one is using nuclear weapons.... where is it going, what is it used for?

well I don't know who/what Simon is; but there are some plausible theories out there that humanity has been used for various resource collection, gold, uranium, plutonium etc.. and that perhaps it is still going on to this day (example: when was the last time Ft Knox was inventoried, do we even know if there is gold there anymore? where is all the enriched plutonium going that all these nuclear plants are producing etc...)

these theories are a lot less fact based so while it's a fun thought experiment, I don't give them too much credence; other than noting them as a potential possibility.

onawah
26th December 2013, 17:55
I was referring to the Simon Parkes thread, here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30323-Simon-Parkes-about-Mantis-Aliens-Reptiles-and-other-aliens.
Simon has some very unique info sources, connections and perspectives, even for a whistleblower.
He was recently interviewed on video by Avalonian Karelia and with Bill Ryan on Skype, fielding questions from many Avalonians who have been following his thread. The interview, we have been promised, will be posted as soon as Bill has finished editing it.
You are too late to ask questions for the interview (though perhaps there may be a subsequent one), but Simon has been answering questions on the members-only thread at the link.
I will ask some if you decline to do so, Target, but I think you would be much better at asking the relevant questions on the nuclear subject.

Kimberley
26th December 2013, 18:46
Onawah, Obviously Target has not been following the Simon thread...

Target, I think you will find Simon Parks to be very interesting and intelligent. Onawah I suggest you ask Simon yourself.

Observer, I need to jump in and support Target...Observer did you watch the whole Galen Winsor lecture? Did you listen to the other 2 Galen pieces that are posted in the Galen thread? One is another video and one is an audio where Galen is talking about what happened at Chernobyl in 1986 after the event.

Did you read the study Taget is referring to about the Taiwan apartment buildings ? Did you go through all 18 pages of a whole lot more supporting content that is posted in the 18 pages?

I would say that anyone that has gone through all of the information gathered in that thread would at the very least certainly have some questions raised in regard to what is the real truth in regard to nuclear power.

All is well! :grouphug:

observer
27th December 2013, 15:49
[....snip]
Observer, I need to jump in and support Target...Observer did you watch the whole Galen Winsor lecture? Did you listen to the other 2 Galen pieces that are posted in the Galen thread? One is another video and one is an audio where Galen is talking about what happened at Chernobyl in 1986 after the event.

Did you read the study Taget is referring to about the Taiwan apartment buildings ? Did you go through all 18 pages of a whole lot more supporting content that is posted in the 18 pages?

I would say that anyone that has gone through all of the information gathered in that thread would at the very least certainly have some questions raised in regard to what is the real truth in regard to nuclear power.

All is well! :grouphug:

I have reviewed enough of this topic to know the difference between bad science and common sense.

In another thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66505-HIGH-LEVELS-of-Radiation-----81.4CPM-in-the-Snow-St.-Louis-Missouri&p=773472#post773472) I have debated Mr. TargeT regarding the obscene proliferation of Depleted Uranium, a generally accepted crime against humanity. Mr. TargeT sees no consequence to littering the battlefields of the Middle East with dust that will adversely effect generations to come.

So, now we come to the subject of Thorium Reactors in every basement of our communities. I reiterate the question of, "what do we do with the waste"?

This question of radioactive waste has been at the core of nuclear proliferation since it was first proposed to use the atom for "peaceful purposes".

Within the home heating industry, the heat exchanger in the most expensive heat plants are guaranteed for no more than ten years. What happens to your private Thorium Reactor when the guarantee expires - let's be generous and say - in fifty years? Who are we going to call to replace the failed control valve? The local Plumber?

Where within our local communities do we pile-up all these worn-out and rotted Thorium Reactors? Do we trust our local scrap yards to properly dispose of them?

What happens to all these basement reactors when we have a Katrina-Sized weather event? Or, some other catastrophic natural event? Do we each become individually responaible for the proper disposal of these devices? Would you trust the crack addict down the street to be responsible for this?

What happens when this technology is applied to the transportation industry? Do we have junk yards of vehicles leaking Thorium for future generations to deal with?

Generating power from any radioactive material is a REALLY BAD IDEA. It makes no common sense.

The engineering concept of Fail-Safe has been thrown into the trash. The global elite want to reduce the population, and this is just one more road to that end.

What ever happened to:

Wind Power?
Solar Power?
Developing more hydroelectric sources?
Bio Fuels?
Harvesting hydrogen from water?


Any one of these sources would solve the energy needs of humanity. Standing in the way of their development are the Global Elite with their strangle-hold on the petroleum industry.

I recall my old bumper sticker, "split wood - not atoms".

In another thread, witchy1 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&p=526468&viewfull=1#post526468) posted an article by Jim Stone that clearly defines the driving force behind the proliferation of nuclear waste - population reduction. That conclusion is all that can be interpreted when reviewing the evidence presented in Mr. Stone's report.

It is my greatest suspicion that these same Global Elite are behind this banter around the Galon Winsor phenomenon.

You are nothing more than a "useless feeder" to them.

onawah
27th December 2013, 17:03
Yes, I see that Target hasn't been following the Simon Parkes thread, but the reason I suggested that he take a look at it and ask Simon some questions about the nuclear issues is that Simon has given us some very unique perspectives on various issues that only a whistleblower with insider sources can offer.
This rabbit hole goes very deep, and since the nuclear issues are so complex, and ALL the information sources we have relied on may be suspect, insider information may be the only thing that could provide a new angle to pursue.
Target speaks from personal experience and long hours of research looking with a fresh eye at evidence that most people, like Observer, consider to be unquestionably accurate.
But for most of us, to get to that point where we can look at the evidence with a fresh eye is the real challenge.
I don't really know where to start, especially given that I just don't have a lot of time to devote to the search, or find the right questions to ask, and most others will likely just wonder if there really is even a reason to start questioning, or feel that the issue is just too complex.
But if an insider whistleblower who is right here on the forum were to give us his perspectives, it might give this controversy just the angle it needs to really get somewhere, instead of just going around and around in the same old circle.
I'm busy transcribing the Simon thread, and I don't have time to do the research that I would need to do just to be able to ask the right questions or provide the right context information, but Target would be the perfect person to do that.
Do you see?

Bob
27th December 2013, 17:38
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?5140-Thorium-would-sensibly-be-the-way-to-go&p=761639&viewfull=1#post761639 OnaWah, hi, that thread I think is a good place to start reading.. Pick that spot there and go backwards, I think your questions about technology would be answered. What I proposed doesn't leak as was suggested in the post above. There is no reason to turn "thorium micro-heat generators" into a "3-Mile Island" event pls.

Uranium technology is bomb mentality and has been a threat for political power uses, micro-thorium heaters are the equivalent of over-unity energy. That's quite a different mentality.

If one though lets big cabal get a hold of "micro-thorium heaters", and tie the concept into the "power grid" it will be a cheap way to have more profits for the cabal, at the expense of the people. The cabal will try to put thorium into massive gigawatt reactors, have billions of dollars tied up, preventing anyone smaller from breaking into the industry.

A micro-thorium heater gives POWER to the people literally, costs pennies really, and provides clean power virtually perpetually, with simple recycling spent modules are returned as are nicad or ni-metal-hydride batteries today. Think D-Cell DRY CELL battery sizes able to produce zero waste zero pollution and electricity and heat for a couple milligrams of low grade thorium that is abundant.


OnaWah: "But for most of us, to get to that point where we can look at the evidence with a fresh eye is the real challenge.



I totally understand, but unless your data is coming from a real technologist with experience, practical knowledge in the field, and has HEART (not your normal scientist), where is one going to get one's data? Hearsay?



I don't really know where to start, especially given that I just don't have a lot of time to devote to the search, or find the right questions to ask, and most others will likely just wonder if there really is even a reason to start questioning, or feel that the issue is just too complex."

I think you will see in that thread that I pointed out, there are questions asked, discussions and solutions shown, in plain and simple english - explained so that a lay person can understand. tnx.

TargeT
28th December 2013, 01:45
I have reviewed enough of this topic to know the difference between bad science and common sense.

In another thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66505-HIGH-LEVELS-of-Radiation-----81.4CPM-in-the-Snow-St.-Louis-Missouri&p=773472#post773472) I have debated Mr. TargeT regarding the obscene proliferation of Depleted Uranium, a generally accepted crime against humanity. Mr. TargeT sees no consequence to littering the battlefields of the Middle East with dust that will adversely effect generations to come.

If you believe in the no threshold, no exposure model, then yes I suppose it would seem that there will be an issue with DU and the small amount of dust it creates; however, since there are several threads on this forum covering the topic from how to heal your self with radiation (Hormesis) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation&highlight=hormesis), how we have been lied to about radiation and its effects (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scam-) and even sensable alternatives (linked above in Bobd's thread) and many other good threads (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54822-Thorium-Is-Evidence-Of-Global-Agenda&highlight=thorium), just search 'thorium".


So, now we come to the subject of Thorium Reactors in every basement of our communities. I reiterate the question of, "what do we do with the waste"?
This question of radioactive waste has been at the core of nuclear proliferation since it was first proposed to use the atom for "peaceful purposes".


Thorium has very little waste, there are methods (that have not been proven completely) to use 99.999% of radioactive isotopes from the thorium fuel cycle (you'd have to understand how the reaction works: since it's actually transmuting material the fuel changes property & becomes "posioned" (nuclear term) and will stop the reaction from happening, but it can be reused in another reactor that is built to react the "posioned" fuel which will then become inert and need to be put back into the original cycle... but that's besides the point) But even at current tech the "waste" is only slightly radioactive for 100 years, not 10,000+ like current waste. (and the levels are quite low)



Within the home heating industry, the heat exchanger in the most expensive heat plants are guaranteed for no more than ten years. What happens to your private Thorium Reactor when the guarantee expires - let's be generous and say - in fifty years? Who are we going to call to replace the failed control valve? The local Plumber?

Since an MSR (molten Salt Reactor) uses convection (natural heat properties) to move the salt around the reactor, there are no valves, no moving parts to replace, no "local plumbers" needed; even the safety mechanisim is ingenious, it's simply a run off drain to a storage tank that is cooled by power provided from the reactor, if the reactor ever runs too hot or power to the cooling of this section fails due to any issues the MSR solution will drain into the tank and all reaction stop. but this is all covered in depth by people more knowledgeable than myself.


Where within our local communities do we pile-up all these worn-out and rotted Thorium Reactors? Do we trust our local scrap yards to properly dispose of them?

What happens to all these basement reactors when we have a Katrina-Sized weather event? Or, some other catastrophic natural event? Do we each become individually responaible for the proper disposal of these devices? Would you trust the crack addict down the street to be responsible for this?

The "left over" is less dangerous than a lot of the chemical byproducts from industries ( Freon is a good example), and we handle that stuff fine.


What happens when this technology is applied to the transportation industry? Do we have junk yards of vehicles leaking Thorium for future generations to deal with?

most likely it would be, though in the form of electric vehicles with an advanced capacitor for power storage (something that is on the verge of discovery it seems) it's possible it could be converted to use in vehicles.. this "leaking thorium" you speak of however, is already everywhere, it's a very very common element in the very dirt we grow our veggies in, in the smoke detectors in your house (yes, right now you are probably no more than 20 feet from thorium!).



Generating power from any radioactive material is a REALLY BAD IDEA. It makes no common sense.

The engineering concept of Fail-Safe has been thrown into the trash. The global elite want to reduce the population, and this is just one more road to that end.

but a LFTR reactor has the very best fail-safe possible, better than any industry ever.. it's the principal of "common sense" actually; however you just were not aware of it so i guess i can understand your statement.


What ever happened to:

Wind Power?
Solar Power?
terribly in-efficent, not viable due to inconsistancies on power production (read a bit about what 'renewables" are doing to power grids, its bad).


Developing more hydroelectric sources?
Hydroelectric is usualy very high impact to ecological environments, not the best option.


Bio Fuels?
Harvesting hydrogen from water?

these both take power, where will that power come from?


Any one of these sources would solve the energy needs of humanity. Standing in the way of their development are the Global Elite with their strangle-hold on the petroleum industry.
did you know the same petroleum industry is deeply tied into every single "green energy" initiative, the strangle hold continues, the hand just wears another glove now...



In another thread, witchy1 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46819-A-video-they-won-t-want-you-to-see--Galen-Winsor-nuclear-scare-scam-&p=526468&viewfull=1#post526468) posted an article by Jim Stone that clearly defines the driving force behind the proliferation of nuclear waste - population reduction. That conclusion is all that can be interpreted when reviewing the evidence presented in Mr. Stone's report.

It is my greatest suspicion that these same Global Elite are behind this banter around the Galon Winsor phenomenon.

You are nothing more than a "useless feeder" to them.

we don't disagree about the current paradigm and its outcomes, but MSR/LFTR are NOT the current paradigm and Mr Stone is not talking about them at all, his concerns are mostly shared by myself, but not about the waste so much, I'm more concerned about where all that refined plutonium/uranium is going.. you know,, the weapons grade stuff that is a direct by product of every single modern nuclear "power plant" (which should be called refined uranium/plutonium plant... the plants technology is even refereed to as a "breeder" reactor, since it produces more refined fissile material) something Mr Winsor was VERY against...


Hopefully you can see how i question your approach and why I call caution to it, since it is also the approach of those same powers you are worried about (or do you actually think the nuclear regulatory agiencies that are funded/run by our government are there to be helpful and do something good for us "useless feeders (btw, I think they call us "useless eaters" not feeders?).

Hope that clears up a bit, I don't think we were quite on the same page.

Bob
28th December 2013, 02:48
Target - here is a link to my post that goes over the Thorium powered URANIUM waste reduction system - fantastic amount of clean power plus removal of the transuranic and uranic wastes (depleted uranium is a fuel for this machine..) This tech exists. It HAS to be implemented to remove the waste problems.

ZERO WASTES - gigawatts of ENERGY, clean, and eats up existing wastes.

It solves the need for the powers that have to make gigabux of money off people while at the same time cleaning up waste from old crappy reactors as used in most of the world today. IT IS a WIN for the powers that be plus the PEOPLE.

To even suggest to shut down a way which can put an end to the 10,000 years of existing waste problem is not doing humanity any good.

ref: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65868-Canada-plans-to-bury-Nuclear-Waste-Near-Lake-Huron&p=766464&viewfull=1#post766464

observer
30th December 2013, 19:56
To both TargeT, and Bobd:

I guess you might just call me a crusty old dog when it comes to teaching new tricks.

I grew-up during the earliest days of the nuclear age, and I've watched these Reptoid Walk-in Global Elite pull every sort of trick when it comes to poisoning the Mass of Humanity with their "Atomic Poison Power".

I haven't really given this Thorium Alternative the research it deserves, nor do I have the energy to do so.

I will acquiesce to both of your expertise with regard to the use of thurium.

I would offer one caveat, however:
Don't minimize what the NATO forces have done to the Middle East regarding Depleted Uranium.

It is a crime against humanity, and should only be viewed by any compassionate entity as an obscenity....

Bob
30th December 2013, 20:03
To both TargeT, and Bobd:

I guess you might just call me a crusty old dog when it comes to teaching new tricks.

I grew-up during the earliest days of the nuclear age, and I've watched these Reptoid Walk-in Global Elite pull every sort of trick when it comes to poisoning the Mass of Humanity with their "Atomic Poison Power".

I haven't really given this Thorium Alternative the research it deserves, nor do I have the energy to do so.

I will acquiesce to both of your expertise with regard to the use of thurium.

I would offer one caveat, however:
Don't minimize what the NATO forces have done to the Middle East regarding Depleted Uranium.

It is a crime against humanity, and should only be viewed by any compassionate entity as an obscenity....

I'm close to your age Observer, right there with the Nam war and the rest of the nuclear terror.. Plutonium bomb mindset sux, no question.. Thorium Energy Multipliers are the way to clean up the mess from the past.. When cleaned completely, that suggestion is if industry and governments actually WANT to clean it up, it can be done in a 100 year time span.. Saving our children's children and the environment. Those thorium Energy Multipliers that consume the previous reactor's wastes are lower cost, and can be built off-site, and transported to where they need to be used to clean up the problems. (and provide vast amounts of useful electricity in the process). Zero emissions from the plant, no leaks.. 30 year life spans per drop in module.

I would gladly prefer over-unity zero-point if it was proven not to destroy or damage the space time fabric.. We don't know that yet. I proposed some excellent methods to get into that, but folks haven't quite grocked where to move with it yet, as it opens up "anti-gravity", "holographic replication of matter" and would put quite a chink in the powers that be economic slavery agenda for the planet..

The thorium Energy multiplier, is not a salt reactor, it is more of a closed system without the water leak issue..

Bob

Ed note - I added a little bit more on the thorium energy multiplier module above

TargeT
31st December 2013, 14:52
I would offer one caveat, however:
Don't minimize what the NATO forces have done to the Middle East regarding Depleted Uranium.

It is a crime against humanity, and should only be viewed by any compassionate entity as an obscenity....

I agree that every round of DU that was fired most probably ruined at least 1 persons life, it's an incredibly devastating kinetic weapon; but what has it done to the middle east other than that? yes there is a small amount of heavy metal dust (MICROgrams) produced when a sabot round hits a tank & heavy metal dust (like lead dust) is not the best for you definitely.

Depleted uranium is roughly 60% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iacenter.org%2Fdepleted%2Ffah ey.htm&ei=C8_CUtmYPImosQS5q4GIDw&usg=AFQjCNH-YPfAietfx3ZtmVtUzz3_3zZTKQ&sig2=WlpPrnpQJKX1y_Dk9KFm2g); I have been wearing a polished piece of uranium ore around my neck for the last year or so...

Personally I think that the middle east should be THANKFUL that they have DU littered around their country, it will probably increase the general health of that region (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53597-Hormesis-Healing-Yourself-with-Low-Dose-Radiation) (something that is desperately needed). Though 60% weaker than natural uranium is a bit low, it'd be better if it was higher radiation, more like natural uranium.


now, I have looked into the DU situation since I was exposed myself twice (during my deployments I was in areas it was used in); if you look for actual studies and actual facts (not emotional fear porn) you'll find that there literally is NOTHING bad about DU rounds (aside from the heavy metal dust, but it's a very small amount) unless they are fired at you.

I understand your concern and your attachment to it, but its not based on good information; it's a part of the same misinfo that we suffer from en-mass.


I haven't really given this Thorium Alternative the research it deserves, nor do I have the energy to do so.

statements like this are very disheartening, when you don't empower yourself with information you give power to those you are trusting to tell you the "right" thing.. for all you know I could just be creating sentences that look like I know what I'm talking about, any source of information you don't research for your self could be.

As such, I do not think that we collectively should ever form an opinion on a topic that we have not done due diligence to, that we have not personally researched; I used to be afraid of any radioactive material, ANY level (which is quite ridiculous once you learn/realize you are being radiated all the time from various sources) because I did not research the topic myself and I fell for a logical fallacy "Appeal to authority" just because an authority tells you something, it does NOT mean it is true.... in fact, I've found that most things told to us by authorities are either completely false or false enough that they are not useful.

so, while I try to help spread what I have learned on topics to people, in reality I'm hopefully just giving you areas to research and verify yourself, I do not want to become an authority that takes power from you, I want to show you how to empower yourself by gaining your own understanding (and opinion) from raw data and fact.

feltip
31st December 2013, 21:21
in this vid Dr Mousseau states his thesis around minute 8-9 that says basically - low level radiation allows the specie to live, but also allows the low levels of radiation to form mutation over time in that specie and these mutations are passed on to next generation....didn't seem like a good thing to me.

I did not see this vid posted after I conducted a site search.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAJnIxQgxU

Kimberley
31st December 2013, 22:02
Target WOW WOW WOW !!!

I love what you wrote to observer! I would like to add that your message is for all of us to remember. "Please do your own research" is the simple version.

As many already know, I/we am/are still finding out more on the Nuclear topic all the time. I realize that one can find information to back up any belief, however when it comes to this nuclear issue I/we just keep finding more and more substantiating information that supports what Galen was trying to tell the world.

If someone would have told me 2 years ago that I would become a proponent of Nuclear Energy I would have laughed in their face. Let me be clear I am NOT in any way shape or form a proponent of nuclear weapons. Because the two are very different.

For example I found this today in a search:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.life-extension/KpONi9OX6u8/L9ui6IcDYl0J

I do not even know what this is or where it came from...I love the opening post and be sure to look at the comments...who knows?

I keep researching this and thank all others that are also finding new information all the time!!!

Oh and at some point Bill Ryan asked for this thread to change its title...I never responded because I still would really like Bill to take time to look through all that we have been gathering for over a year and a half...Although I have great respect that he or whomever chooses to follow or not to follow whatever they choose has that right.

For example there are really only a few topics that catch my eye here... I do not have time to follow everything and know that either does anyone else!

Obviously this topic keeps pulling at me...and I am glad it does. Thank you to all that keep plugging away on this!

Much love to us all! :grouphug:

Hip Hipnotist
1st January 2014, 00:06
I don't take the time to visit Avalon as much as I once did but I will say that this thread/topic was a major eye opener for me and others I shared it with.

It was kind'a like when you were told there's no such thing as Santa Claus. It took a lot of wind out of your sails.

In this case it took out a lot of fear, imagined or otherwise.

It was and still is a great thread.