+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 5 6 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 112

Thread: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

  1. Link to Post #81
    United States Avalon Member 1 flew over's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th July 2013
    Age
    71
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    273
    Thanked 415 times in 100 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    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 canít 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 donít 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 donít 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

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 1 flew over For This Post:

    Atlas (28th September 2013), panopticon (30th September 2013)

  3. Link to Post #82
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,754 times in 9,343 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    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.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    JRS (30th September 2013), ljwheat (20th October 2013), seko (30th September 2013), TargeT (29th September 2013)

  5. Link to Post #83
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by 1 flew over (here)
    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 Archís Eastern part was performed

    Cheers,
    Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  6. Link to Post #84
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    10th July 2013
    Location
    Project Avalon
    Posts
    3,661
    Thanks
    19,216
    Thanked 16,121 times in 3,214 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    1 flew over, you read my mind.

    Quote Posted by 1 flew over (here)
    TargeT

    Just canít let it rest, huh?
    Quote As I said good luck with your uranium pendant.
    Last edited by Atlas; 28th September 2013 at 22:14.

  7. Link to Post #85
    United States Avalon Member 1 flew over's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th July 2013
    Age
    71
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    273
    Thanked 415 times in 100 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by panopticon (here)
    Quote Posted by 1 flew over (here)
    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 Archís Eastern part was performed

    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

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to 1 flew over For This Post:

    panopticon (30th September 2013)

  9. Link to Post #86
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    39
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,676 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by 1 flew over (here)
    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
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    778 neighbour of some guy (19th December 2013), ljwheat (20th October 2013), Mad Hatter (5th January 2014), outerheaven (19th December 2013), panopticon (30th September 2013), pilotsimone (24th December 2013), seko (30th September 2013), Snookie (30th September 2013)

  11. Link to Post #87
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 7,989 times in 2,304 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    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
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    heyokah (19th December 2013), outerheaven (19th December 2013), TargeT (30th September 2013)

  13. Link to Post #88
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    20,553
    Thanks
    68,069
    Thanked 260,114 times in 19,018 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    -------

    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. 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.

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Atlas (30th September 2013), Darla Ken Pearce (30th September 2013), Limor Wolf (30th September 2013), ljwheat (20th October 2013), onawah (30th September 2013), panopticon (30th September 2013), Paul (30th September 2013), seko (30th September 2013)

  15. Link to Post #89
    United States Avalon Member 1 flew over's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th July 2013
    Age
    71
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    273
    Thanked 415 times in 100 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Quote Posted by 1 flew over (here)
    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:
    Quote Posted by 1 flew over (here)

    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
    Last edited by 1 flew over; 30th September 2013 at 05:58.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 1 flew over For This Post:

    panopticon (30th September 2013), TargeT (30th September 2013)

  17. Link to Post #90
    United States Avalon Member ljwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th January 2012
    Location
    Cape Coral, Florida
    Age
    70
    Posts
    948
    Thanks
    5,302
    Thanked 4,456 times in 858 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    I also have spent hundreds of hours looking for, and finding evidence to substantiate Galan Winsorís 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 humanityÖ

    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 livesí since birth. Nuclear scam and its iron hold on the worlds belief in the lieís 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 thatís 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
    :thumb: Paintings that I have created over the last 35 years >Gallery http://projectavalon.net/forum4/album.php?albumid=587< or here at ACC http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/gro...-or-collection

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ljwheat For This Post:

    1 flew over (20th October 2013), 778 neighbour of some guy (19th December 2013), TargeT (19th December 2013)

  19. Link to Post #91
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2010
    Location
    the foothills of le Massif Central, France
    Age
    72
    Posts
    1,352
    Thanks
    7,476
    Thanked 4,829 times in 1,059 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Might drop this post here as well.

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Quote Posted by heyokah (here)
    "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

    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.
    Last edited by heyokah; 27th December 2013 at 07:24. Reason: clarity abd format

  20. Link to Post #92
    United States Avalon Member ljwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th January 2012
    Location
    Cape Coral, Florida
    Age
    70
    Posts
    948
    Thanks
    5,302
    Thanked 4,456 times in 858 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    778, . Very valid points - about the planet nothing has been added or taken away since it formed long ago. Evidence has shown the even volcanoís are not a bad thing either.

    Sure you donít want to get caught under it when it goís off, plenty of collateral damage. But all the raw essential minerals including radio active oreís 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 cityís didnít 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, SighÖ

    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 cityís than they have bombs. Life will go on and the dead zoneís will only exist in the heads of the NRC believers. And the only evidence of this possibility is in two cityís 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 timeís 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.

    Weíve been blinded since birth, on many topicís 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, thatís why its called a rabbit hole, its deep and was put there over centuryís, 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 leaderís in his field, none greater with hands on first person ,,, Before the NRC turns whistle blower. The evidence of Japan two thriving cityís not dead for 5 thousand year. Laugh in the face of the NRCís .. And their 6 decades of lieís.
    :thumb: Paintings that I have created over the last 35 years >Gallery http://projectavalon.net/forum4/album.php?albumid=587< or here at ACC http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/gro...-or-collection

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ljwheat For This Post:

    778 neighbour of some guy (19th December 2013), Kimberley (19th December 2013), Krist (26th December 2013), TargeT (19th December 2013)

  22. Link to Post #93
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    39
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,676 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by ljwheat (here)
    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
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    778 neighbour of some guy (19th December 2013), Kimberley (19th December 2013)

  24. Link to Post #94
    Netherlands Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2012
    Age
    48
    Posts
    2,688
    Thanks
    7,860
    Thanked 12,625 times in 2,401 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote 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.

  25. Link to Post #95
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th March 2010
    Location
    Within a few kilometers of Avalon
    Age
    72
    Posts
    1,702
    Thanks
    3,990
    Thanked 7,178 times in 1,466 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    [....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:



    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" -

    Last edited by observer; 25th December 2013 at 15:57. Reason: clarity/add link

  26. Link to Post #96
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    39
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,676 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    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, 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.


    Quote Posted by observer (here)
    . 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.

    Quote Posted by observer (here)
    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?
    Last edited by TargeT; 25th December 2013 at 17:19.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  27. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    DNA (2nd May 2016), JRS (27th December 2013), Kimberley (26th December 2013), Krist (26th December 2013), ljwheat (30th December 2013), Mad Hatter (5th January 2014), meat suit (27th December 2013), onawah (25th December 2013), Reinhard (25th December 2013), Sebastion (25th December 2013)

  28. Link to Post #97
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,754 times in 9,343 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    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!


    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    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?
    Last edited by onawah; 25th December 2013 at 18:49.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Kimberley (26th December 2013)

  30. Link to Post #98
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    39
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,676 times in 7,042 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    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!


    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    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.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    DNA (2nd May 2016)

  32. Link to Post #99
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,754 times in 9,343 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    I was referring to the Simon Parkes thread, here:
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...d-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.
    Last edited by onawah; 26th December 2013 at 18:00.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Kimberley (26th December 2013), TargeT (27th December 2013)

  34. Link to Post #100
    Avalon Member Kimberley's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    2,065
    Thanks
    7,329
    Thanked 12,738 times in 1,912 posts

    Default Re: Please watch the Galen Winsor Nuclear Scare Scam lectures

    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!

  35. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Kimberley For This Post:

    DNA (2nd May 2016), heyokah (27th December 2013), JRS (27th December 2013), onawah (27th December 2013), TargeT (27th December 2013)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts