I have found a disturbing paradox and need assistence. Is our planet being terraformed using radioac

Ionising radiation like that leaked from a nuclear reactor damages the nucleus of biological cells, then why would any life form what there to be radiation?

would make perfect sense scientists & TPTB (if not ET's) see the human species is no longer evolving (it isn't)

and want to induce various mutations.

imagine a planet of mutated humans & mutated flora & fauna everywhere, in a few generations? something new for them to study & mold/control

i think the worlds being tereformed by aliens that need caffein, think about it theres a starbucks on every corner lol

reply to post by ignant


i saw a program on this before

BBC horizon - are we still evolving

enjoy

a paradox

www.abovetopsecret.com...

oh and you say can`t shut down nuke power unless you have something to replace it with and a plan to implament it. its just silly talk unless you have these things

Originally posted by 11andrew34
Here is a paradox for you...you are supposedly worried about the death of millions, yet nuclear power is the only reasonable chance we have at clean power for the entire planet.

What utter crap! Nuclear is dangerous and isn't clean. FACT!

There have been catastrophes and there could be worse to come. The waste remains hazardous for thousands of years. If there is even a 0.1% chance (and there is) of serious accidents we should look to alternatives. End of argument.

I see a lot of members trying to derail this thread.

reply to post by TheMindWar

After reading through this thread, it's clear many of the reply's here do not support the OP's arguments.

I personally have noticed a number of claims made by you (OP) and am wondering if you can back up and verify any of the following claims, as there is no cited references for any of them.

In chronological order...

You would have thought after the recent incidents that radioactive nuke stations would have been outlawed as there is the potential to kill everyone on the planet.

Incidents? Potential to kill everyone on the planet? Please clarify, which incidents other than fukushima? And what evidence suggests that any one of them could kill everyone on the planet?

If nuclear power is not removed globally we are all gonna be killed and we all know it. If we know this radiation will eventually kill us then so do TPTB.

We are? Since when? Evidence please? And how long do we have?

The storage of chemicals is a stationary event and can be done very safely. Nuclear power works on
notion of controlling a chain reaction, and is far more dangerous. Also if chemicals escaped they would undoubtedly be localized rather than global.

I suspect the argument as to HOW nuclear would be global is due to wind. How would it be different to a chemical in the air? Can you provide any studies that show nuclear contamination versus chemical to back up that statement?

[in reference to clean power for the entire planet] We even have the capability to build and use geo-thermal power stations

I would assume a clean answer to all our energy needs for the entire planet would be huge new, can you please cite this news?

Of course we know, fukashima radioan has now encircled the globe, two more like it and we are toast. There are 420+ public stations on the planet, plus many more secret stations.

Any citations on these three claims? 1. Radiation has circled the globe (believable imo) 2. Two more (incidents?) like fukushima will kill us all 3. Secret nuclear power stations?

If there is a high chance the planet could be killed from another fukashima then why are they not doing anything about it?

Seriously, who the hell is saying this? Please give some sort of credible source as to why you are telling everyone 'one more fukushima, and we are toast'.

Answers please. Consider this one of those "put up or shut up" scenarios. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and look forward to you puttin' it up. Though I honestly expect you to ignore this post altogether, as most people do when confronted in such a fashion about their outlandish claims.

I also wanted to make mention of the following excepts I found interesting, made by the author of this thread, and some input regarding these statements.

Again in chronological order....

Of course it is! The paradox being, "TPTB are happy with the radiation even though it will kill them", if thats not a paradox I am reptillian!

Looks like someone has a forked tongue, because that's not a paradox.

"have no electricty or death by radiation". IMHO there is no choice to make!

Sure there is, I'll take no electricity please. How is that not a choice?

PARADOX
"An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises."
The paradox, is why would one be willing to kill themselves, it contradicts the basic survival instincts of a species.

Good try... Sadly even with the definition that is still not a paradox.
It is possible to have a survival instinct, and still be willing to kill yourself.
The two conditions existing in the same universe will not cause such universe to explode.

You know damn well there is no word for an alien term of terraforming. It has been stated by many scientists that aliens may "Terraform planets".

The term you are looking for is Xeno-Terraforming, coined by H.G. Wells in his 1898 book "The War of the Worlds" - you may have heard of it.

TPTB will not be developing a virus without having the key vaccine to protect themselves from it

So in your supposed "paradox" you claim "TPTB are happy with the radiation even though it will kill them".... do I really need to point out the obvious here?

Regards - LS

Nuclear power is great. Its not killing us. If we do stupid things with it, sure, it can kill us. Why in the world would you wanna get rid of our power plants? We need power now more than ever.

the fear mongering of nuclear power has been going on since the 1950s
the US NAVY has a very safe nuclear record and the use of cheap power would have been solved years ago,
if the press had not stopped the building of plants back in the seventies
as for waste why not build smaller plants to use up what bigger plants discard than that problem goes away
big oil and coal do not want nuclear to succeed as by by billions
when the Rickenbacker auto came out with disk brakes mr ford put him out of business claiming safety issues
the powers that control everything will not give up the almighty dollar no matter the cost to mankind
you get more radiation watching tv than a sub sailor in the reactor room at sea , more reactors are needed not less

Originally posted by Lighterside

The term you are looking for is Xeno-Terraforming, coined by H.G. Wells in his 1898 book "The War of the Worlds" - you may have heard of it.[/align]

sorry to derail the thread,
and i've agreed with everything else you've said
but
HG Wells coined the term Xeno-Terraforming in War of the Worlds? I've read the book about a hundred times and i'm pretty sure that's not in my copy. if there are other editions with different wordings it would be cool to get hold of one.

well, ive heard they are progressing well with anti-matter, so maybe it wont be long before we see plans for an anti-matter reactor.

I don't think terraforming is the word you should use. Yes, humans are a virus for this planet, but terraforming would be to make it more habitable for humans, not for the other species here.

Originally posted by Pimander
Nuclear is dangerous and isn't clean. FACT!

So is coal. It kills more people from cancer alone than nuclear. And that's without all the other environmental impacts. And those living around he Gulf of Mexico know how safe oil is.

Nuclear could kill a lot of people. Fossil fuels will kill a lot of people. And do. Every year.

This is stupid. Anything could kill you if you are irresponsible with it. If you build a campfire, and sit in it, it will harm you.