It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Discovery of a Two Billion Year Old Nuclear Reactor

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
pureinsight.org...



The remnants of nuclear reactors nearly two billion years old were found in the 1970s in Africa. These reactors are thought to have occurred naturally. No natural reactors exist today, since the relative density of fissile uranium has now decayed below that needed for a sustainable reaction. Pictured above is Fossil Reactor 15, located in Oklo, Gabon. Uranium oxide remains are visible as the yellowish rock. Oklo by-products are being used today to study the stability of the fundamental constants over cosmological time-scales and to develop more effective means for disposing of human-manufactured nuclear waste. Photo by: Robert D. Loss, WAISRC
I-4 Nuclear Reactor from Two Billion Years Ago

[PureInsight.org] In 1972, a French company imported some uranium ore from Oklo in the Gabon Republic in Africa. Surprisingly the uranium concentration in the ore was as low as spent uranium fuel from a nuclear reactor. The finding led scientists to believe that the uranium had already been used for energy production. This discovery shocked the world and attracted scientists from many countries to go to Oklo for further investigation. The results showed that the uranium mine was an ancient nuclear reactor. The ancient reactor consisted of five hundred tons of utilized uranium ore in six different areas. Its output power was estimated to be approximately one hundred kilowatts. The reactor was perfectly preserved and its layout was very rational. It is estimated that the reactor had been in operation for around 500,000 years. Furthermore, nuclear wastes produced in this reactor had not spread all over the surrounding areas. Instead, they were confined within the separate sections. From the perspective of modern nuclear technology, this ancient reactor used very advanced techniques.

According to geological dating, the Oklo uranium mine was formed about 2 billion years ago. Shortly after formation, the nuclear reactor commenced operation. The research results made scientists seriously consider the possibility of prehistoric civilization. Such a nuclear reactor could be a product of a civilization from long ago, although scientists have proposed completely natural mechanisms by which the chain reactions could have taken place.

Human beings have only made use of nuclear power for a couple of decades. This discovery raised the intriguing possibility that a technologically more advanced civilization existed two billion years ago and it had advanced knowledge of nuclear fission. But if this assumption were correct, one would ask why such an advanced civilization did not perpetuate its own existence. Instead, it disappeared for unknown reasons, leaving only ancient relics. How should we view such a discovery? A large unaccounted-for time gap exists between two billion years ago and our present historical human civilization. What could have happened during that time?

If we neglect relics of prehistoric civilization, there is no way we can broaden the scope of our present knowledge. We will neither know what caused prehistoric civilizations to degenerate, or how they finally came to disappear. Moreover, we should carefully examine whether our current method of scientific development is following the same disastrous road. This is surely a subject worthy of serious consideration.



I read somewhere else that the catholic church and the USA government wanted this to be covered up as quickly as possible..."We will fight the manipulators"




posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
hmmm....remnants of the creators if Iapetus?



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The Oklo Fossil Reactors were not constructed, they were natural formations which cycled on and off as they burned off the water which percolated thru them.
Water gets in, reaction starts, water boils off, reaction stops, water gets in....etc....
www.ocrwm.doe.gov...
cool stuff

[edit on 2-4-2005 by tjack]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Question is, is this government (.gov site) site telling the truth. Trying to put my mind around this one.

Maybe the reactors were made by an ancient civilization? Heck we had saucers flying around when supposedly there was just cave dwelling people.


Troy



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
ummmmmmmm.......................... how interesting great find



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
only one problem..............the world isnt 2 billion years old, and if u think it is, where's the proof?



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
only one problem..............the world isnt 2 billion years old, and if u think it is, where's the proof?


The planet is more like 4 billion years old



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
cha.......right. in almost every textbook or book that ive read, the age of the world is given a different date of existance. some say 2 billion, some 4, others 6.
1 estimated age

2nd estimated age

age of the earth

another age

evolutionsts rely on radioactive dating to produce numbers and to estimate teh age of the earth, but how accurate is radioactive dating?

radioactive dating
accuracy of radioactive dating



Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the accuracy is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created. Accuracy is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples taken from the same rock body but at different locations. This permits some compensation for variations.


I'm not saying evolution is wrong, or that its right. both creationsim and evolution are difficult ideas to completely proove without controversy, because nobody was around to see when the earth first formed.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the planet! Yeesh


en.wikipedia.org...




The planet formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×10^9)



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Very interesting information and one to make scientist wonder about what may had happen billions of years ago.

Occurs we are starting to discover now that human has been on earth longer than thought.

I know that we will hear more about all this things.

And by the way can you trust mankind to tell you how old we have been around? I wouldn't.


I trust what can be prove on religous ideologies and myths.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
it all makes sense when u get in gen 1:2. the earth was(BECAME) void and without form. and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

is there anyway that if the place was either manufactured, or natural formed, that the energy could be used/harnessed for output? and if so , what was it powering?



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
This is extremely interesting...we don't really know do we, if they are natural or not. I'm one that believes we have done this civilization here, civilization destroyed off and on thing...for billions of years over and over again.....
great find!



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Well if there were any humans around building nuclear reactors 2 billion years ago, they muust have led a pretty lonely existance.

Cos all other life on the planet was in the seas. Plants only started to appear on land some 1 and a half billion years later.....

And although atmospheric oxygen levels were starting to rise, they were only 15% of current levels. Those ancient humans must have been wearing gas masks too



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The only problem I see is that all alone we have been to believe what creation has told us, and now as more things start to show through the realities of the lies we have been told for centuries crumbling away.

Yes I also believe that life in this planet came from somewhere else and is not the one in the bible.

We were tampered by higher beings and we humans are the result of that big experiment.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
There was also another post on here that had mentioned an ancient nuclear reactor found in India. Well it wasnt about a nuclear reactor but a nuclear war.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems like there were ancient advanced civilizations with all this information coming up.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Well if there were any humans around building nuclear reactors 2 billion years ago, they muust have led a pretty lonely existance.


Who said anything about humans? We are not, by a long shot, the only life forms on this planet. Who is to say that some previous life form did not achieve an advanced level of civilization? There are more wonders in this universe than we can ever imagine any many more that have already passed. Humans tend to give themselves too much credit sometimes...

Here's another thought. What if these natural reactors were the forming block of an advanced civilization and not the product thereof? Imagine some previous group of beings that found these natural energy sources and learned to harness that power catapulting that group into civilization. Not hard to imagine when you consider the myriad of life forms that have recently been found living in established interactive groups around deep-sea vents.

What if all of our current ideas of aliens are actually some form of shared memory of species long gone from this earth, passed down from evolutionary generation to evolutionary generation?



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I believe there are life forms on these vents living at extreme temperatures, where life isn't supposed to be able to exist.

Evolution leaves out the possibility that life forms could have been introduced to this earth, and not evolved from something else. Evolutionary theory does not necessarily agree with some fossils that have been found. Apparently there are missing fossils that would show a gradual change from one form to another. Creation, as defined in a dictionary, would make more sense than evolution in the case of missing fossils.

I believe there is a vast amount of knowlege about the universe that many have not become aware of.

Troy



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


you insinuate that this anceint civ. was built like us. eventhougth i belive in a young earth if you are going to make a good argument you have to get of conventional ways of thinking. and i know i am a horrable speller.and i apologize for that



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I read somewhere,looking cant remember site, that some ancient boiler was dicovered somewhere in usa and was bulldozed into a river to hide the truth, by us gov..ODD..I think the micheal cremo site. But if i'm correct on my memory that was also supposed to be dated in the millions of years.I'm lookin hard so......



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
stuff for sitchin's assholes




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join