Fukushima Lies (by mental environmentalists)

reply to post by Liberal1984


The Fukushima lies are the ones being told by the authorities whose "official" position is the nuclear power is safe while the entire Pacific ocean is being contaminated.

Mankind, especially profit motivated ones, are not ready to manage nuclear power. Look up the "Tooth Fairy Project". The Indian point nuke plant north of NYC routinely releases radioactive steam, just like all of the other similar plants. The steam in turn carries strontium-90 downwind to the population of Westchester county. Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium and is now found in higher concentrations in baby teeth than back in the early 60's when this was being monitored due to above ground nuclear testing.

So, who thinks it is a good idea to have radioactive particles bombarding nearby cells in the bodies of their families... in their teeth, bones and mammary glands?

Sure, coal is dirty and localized sites will be an environmental mess for many years but one bad preconception like "there will never be a tidal wave that big" will end up poisoning the largest ocean. Do you like tuna? Do you want to buy a geiger counter so you can go shopping?

Fujushima is a global disaster and the UN should step in and get the evil profit motivated idiots out of the way and seal the damn thing up before folks in California need lead suits to go swimming.

Future generations will curse us for what we are doing to this planet.

thetruthseeker Let's turn off nuclear energy and switch to free energy to the whole planet. We do not need companies which are sucking our dollars when Tesla found a way to have all the energy we need without having to pay each and every month. If that’s the truth why haven’t either you personally (or at least someone you know of personally) built one of these devices?

reply to post by Liberal1984


Because...... it's completely ILLEGAL to build them. I personally know of someone who did and received a visit to 'shut it down' immediately. People are NOT allowed to use any of Tesla's technology, that's reserved ONLY for the government projects like HAARP... (and this happened in a tiny town in Canada -they can TELL immediately when someone uses this technology - EVERYTHING is monitored)

thruthseek3r
reply to post by Liberal1984

 

Let's turn off nuclear energy and switch to free energy to the whole planet. We do not need companies which are sucking our dollars when Tesla found a way to have all the energy we need without having to pay each and every month.
Thruthseek3r

I agree, why would we continue to waste money and resources for energy that kills us if anything goes wrong.
Our government stole all of tesla work and we have been seeing it developed to the advantage of government and the few elite families. They have never released any of his beneficial work. He had proven technics that worked.

I heard stories from old timers in Manitou springs of how his experiments would bleed over into different parts of town. That told of teleportation and other fantastic tales. They said in a certain area around teslas experiments you could have free energy while his equipment was on, and that he loved to carry a bulb around and show off electricity without wires.

One of those great men in history that ended up in obscurity in their lives. Also one of many that openly said he had help from beings from other worlds.

Nuclear energy far to expensive to offset the energy we get especially since the waste we can't even get rid of. The OP talks about a process that is incredibly expensive, complex, and never been implemented on a large scale before. I would not want to test it on my planet lol.

I wish, pray, I live to see the free energy revolution change the world. One movie i would love to see be reality.

The Bot

downwind: The Fukushima lies are the ones being told by the authorities whose "official" position is the nuclear power is safe while the entire Pacific ocean is being contaminated.

Anyone who tells you anything is safe, forgets the fact that there is really nothing (including breathing) that is safe –just less dangerous than the alternatives.

There’s quite a few lies being told about the Pacific, including that Fukushima is releasing 10 Hiroshima’s every hour –something mathematically impossible as I showed 12 replies down here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mankind, especially profit motivated ones, are not ready to manage nuclear power. Look up the "Tooth Fairy Project".

I did…

The Tooth Fairy Project is a pseudoscientific research project[1] undertaken by an anti-nuclear organization called Radiation and Public Health Project. It intends to demonstrate that routine emissions of very small amounts of radioactivity from nuclear power plants have a measurable impact on the health of people living near those facilities. The project's activities are supported by the movie star Alec Baldwin[2] and some other misguided celebrities. rationalwiki.org...

The Indian point nuke plant north of NYC routinely releases radioactive steam, just like all of the other similar plants. The steam in turn carries strontium-90 downwind to the population of Westchester county. Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium and is now found in higher concentrations in baby teeth than back in the early 60's when this was being monitored due to above ground nuclear testing.

That is actually true. Bad if was a coal plant there, it would be releasing less toxic toxins (but in larger quantities) and therefore amounting to a greater public health threat overall. That is the nature of fossil fuels, even gas (which used to be relatively clean) is now coming from fracking.

So, who thinks it is a good idea to have radioactive particles bombarding nearby cells in the bodies of their families... in their teeth, bones and mammary glands?

It’s just a matter of accepting that if the West doesn’t develop nuclear power more, the third world will continue to use older technologies like fossil fuels (and in the process will emit far more pollution than our population ever did). Electricity improves human life far more than it costs it. Be real. People are not going to stop using it anytime soon, and third world nations are not going to build nuclear if we’re still favouring fossil fuel –a finite solution, that probably only delays the introduction of nuclear power...

wishes: Because...... it's completely ILLEGAL to build them. I personally know of someone who did and received a visit to 'shut it down' immediately.

If it’s completely illegal to build these free energy machines, then that only confirms nuclear is the best realistic option available.
Coal mining, fracking, and nuclear, all share one thing i.e. that they can never be done by everyone in their back garden. But unlike the first two, it doesn’t take much to realise nuclear is far superior in at least the lives it doesn’t cost (as a ratio of electricity generated).

dlbott: I agree, why would we continue to waste money and resources for energy that kills us if anything goes wrong.

Time to stop buying all electricity for your home then, isn’t it? Did you now that electricity (in addition to being a major cause of accidental death) is also the biggest cause of house fire.
But you won’t stop buying electricity, simply because you know life is too miserable without it (and therefore worth the small statistical risk of death).
Nuclear energy (whilst having big consequences when badly designed and then also badly managed) still gets buy (in statistical terms) as causing greatly less deaths than it’s tolerated competitors.

Our government stole all of tesla work and we have been seeing it developed to the advantage of government and the few elite families. They have never released any of his beneficial work. He had proven technics that worked.

Tesla’s “free energy” was not free because it violated the recognised laws of physics. It was free simply because it was an electricity transmitter that used the Earth’s ionosphere (not to create more energy than was put in) but to simply transport it in a way anyone could then access it hence being free.

I’ve heard the main reason why government doesn’t want it out is because tests at the Wardenclyffe Tower had negative consequences both for the weather, and for human health (during one of the trials all birds & animals left the area).

Nuclear energy far to expensive to offset the energy we get especially since the waste we can't even get rid of. The OP talks about a process that is incredibly expensive, complex, and never been implemented on a large scale before.

These are engineering problems. Not reasons not to tackle those engineering problems –especially since most of the required research has either already been done, or is nearing completion.

Otherwise: We’re going to be stuck with fossil fuels, and then nuclear after e.g. China has developed it (as India too is currently doing).

reply to post by Liberal1984

Care to elaborate on how that one person can change the world?
....... should be just as easy as figuring out the complexity of Tesla's missing works.

Liberal1984

thetruthseeker: One must remember that the absence of proof is not a proof of absence!

Very true. But so long as free energy is absent, it remains an absent option. Maybe it’s only because everybody who comes up with it gets murdered?
But either way: That would just guarantee the alternatives to nuclear will carry on being coal, fracking and ridiculously inefficient, corrupt, government funded “renewable” schemes.
In which case: Nuclear is still the better option (out of all options realistically available).
I will for people to know that if they oppose nuclear, they should oppose coal & fracking lots more. Because the people of this world deserve to know which are the planets greatest threats so the first things voters choose to eliminate, are actually the biggest doers of harm.

Why would people get threats or being killed for it ? Because the ones behind the alternative energy are very aware that if it goes out, they loose their corporations and they are not ready to do this. I still believe though that one day or the other it might become mainstream simply because it works and would cost a darn amount less to the people, a one time buy with maintenance instead of paying each and every month, wonderful in my opinion.




Thruthseek3r

thruthseek3r: I still believe though that one day or the other it might become mainstream

But if free energy has long been possible, then how weird Iran, Cuba, and North Korea don’t use it (all these are isolated by both the international banking system, and international trade embargoes so would have little to lose). Strange too that the Soviet Union, Vietnam and others (in their hayday) never invented it.

ThedudedoesnotabideCare to elaborate on how that one person can change the world?

History is full of such people. Study it.

....... should be just as easy as figuring out the complexity of Tesla's missing works.

And what use would that be if building them involves going inside a coffin, and then the whole thing being covered up anyway?

I don’t believe Tesla (or anyone) created a machine that creates energy from nowhere. All Tesla (provably) did was create a device that transmitted electricity through the air -that could then be tapped into by anyone free of charge (but that electricity would still cost someone something since it required a source powered by e.g. coal, gas or nuclear).

There is some electricity that can be extracted from lightening however…

The logistical problems involved in making it work are significant. First of all, there's the basic fact that thunder storms are sporadic and lighting strikes random; considering that energy demands are steady, dependable energy sources are preferable.
Second, it's not so easy to capture energy delivered in one enormous blast in a split second. It has to be stored and converted to an alternating current, without blowing out the collection system in a single large strike.
Third, the energy contained in a lightning bolt disperses as it travels down to Earth, so a tower would only capture a small fraction of the bolt's potential. In the end, barring the development of a technology that could capture the energy from lightning before it strikes, it's probably best to focus on other, more earthly sources of energy. science.howstuffworks.com...

Worst of all: Extracting lightening could be bad (on a large scale) given lightening is responsible for good like creating e.g. most naturally available nitrates (essential for plant life). You simply can’t steel big energy from Earth’s atmosphere without serious, unintended, consequences elsewhere.
Even wind-turbines bugger up climate, because you cannot power a city from wind speed without having a butterfly effect… www.telegraph.co.uk...

In Contrast…
All nuclear energy originates ancient stars, whose dust the Earth is composed of, and which therefore also created almost every element within the human body.

In the case of breeder reactors (fuelled by Thorium 232 or Uranium 238) at least half this energy wasn’t even due to be released by natural decay before the Sun swallowed up Earth in 4-5 billion years’ time.
Half the energy from Uranium 235 (the type used in reactors today) was not due for release for the next 703.8 million years. Even then: The available percentage extracted from this planet crusts (whose thickness resemble an orange-peel) and whose crusts are two thirds covered by sea, is incredibly tiny.

Within seconds it’s left the fuel rod, boiled water, powered a turbine, then fractions of a second later… powered your computer. Only to come off as infrared, and within only several hours make its way into deepest space (depending on your home insulation).
So (with about just hour’s correction time) nuclear energy is all but fully in equilibrium with mankind’s energy needs, yet manmade to the points that it doesn’t parasite off nature literally every second –unlike all other sources.

I believe it was always mankind’s destiny to eventually crack this problem.
So rather than waste a lifetime on free-energy it seems better to me (at least for today) to focus on making reactors safer in ways effective enough to then be adopted. This really isn’t against the laws of physics (and judging by decades of improvements) we’re more than half way.

reply to post by Liberal1984

So rather than waste a lifetime on free-energy it seems better to me (at least for today) to focus on making reactors safer in ways effective enough to then be adopted.

The problem is that the people who control big oil/gas/coal now also control (in the USA at least) the nuclear power generating companies, and the NRC and its political comrades make sure that only the large, expensive reactors ever get licensed. There is huge money for construction contractors, like Haliburton, to get even richer, and kickbacks and corruption are rife. Then they make gobs more money with decommissioning, which they drag out for years.
There are already many designs for smaller nuclear plants that are perfectly safe, run for 30 years without refueling, and can then be hauled away to be refurbished. The Toshiba 4S is just one, and they wanted to demo it in Galena, Alaska, but they gave up due to all the red tape and the amount of time it would take to work through it. And as has happened before, at the last minute the NRC demands design changes that would take years and greatly increase costs.
Galena Nuclear Power Plant
en.wikipedia.org...

Liberal1984

thruthseek3r: I still believe though that one day or the other it might become mainstream

But if free energy has long been possible, then how weird Iran, Cuba, and North Korea don’t use it (all these are isolated by both the international banking system, and international trade embargoes so would have little to lose). Strange too that the Soviet Union, Vietnam and others (in their hayday) never invented it.

If this energy goes out somewhere in world, be it a prosper or poor country, it will spread worldwide anyway because of the press. This, this is what they high corporates and lobbyists do not want because they would loose millions if not billions because it would crash the markets of coal, gas, nuclear, dams and so on.


It is plain and simple a matter of money. Although, on a more positive note as I said earlier in another post, because some people got killed for trying to bring free energy in our modern society does not mean it will be the same forever. The tide might not change, it will this is for sure, it is called evolution, the only question is when to be honest ??? When I ask you ?




Thruthseek3r

reply to post by Liberal1984

Nuclear between 1971-2009 saved about 1.8 million lives

that's like...0,025 % of the world population. From that statistical angle...it looks insignificant.


edit:

For scale...according to the CIA fact book...something like 155,000 people die every day...multiply it by 360...you come to a number around 55 million, in 1 year...

And nuclear saved 1.8 in 38 years.

Not a significant number to point as some sort of argument pro nuclear.

GaryN: The problem is that the people who control big oil/gas/coal now also control (in the USA at least) the nuclear power generating companies, and the NRC and its political comrades make sure that only the large, expensive reactors ever get licensed.

It’s a problem, but its reasons merely reinforces my observation that the only realistic choice is between: coal, fracking, nuclear and corrupt & inefficient alternatives.

Of course one can also hop that there is going to be a semi-decent president & alternative political party elected into government, but common… day dreaming is worthwhile, but...

Before that dream becomes real, the discussion must focus on which of these realistic options is the least worst. Because otherwise coal and fracking will happen, when we could have nuclear instead.

Thetruthseeker: If this energy goes out somewhere in world, be it a prosper or poor country, it will spread worldwide anyway because of the press. This, this is what they high corporates and lobbyists do not want

Great! But let’s consider free energy a realistic alternative when at least one of the 196 countries in this world, deploys it. Before that time it far more with day dreaming, than policy debating.

MarioOnTheFly: And nuclear saved 1.8 in 38 years.

Not a significant number to point as some sort of argument pro nuclear.

It’s Highly Significant When…
1. During that time, fossil fuels have killed tens of millions, and this could therefore have been mostly avoided if nuclear was to be used more than only providing about 12.3% of world energy.
2. Most arguments against nuclear like to employ safety (since that’s something the public can’t easily quantify) and yet it’s safer than fossil fuel which the public (in their ignorance) are more willing to accept.
3. If there is any truth about the idea mankind’s (still exponentially) rising CO2 emissions, aid climate chaos, then the number of lives standing to be saved from nuclear (relative to the alternatives that will otherwise realistically be used) is potentially even greater than first appears.

reply to post by Liberal1984


Ok, so... you do realize money exists right?
You see when people get money they can buy things, the more money, the more things you can buy. This gives you power, at this point most people use their money not only to get things, but also maintain their power. This is how the world works, and of course they use part of that money to hide this from regular folks (Official reports, mainstream media, scientific studies, hollywood films, etc).
I hope i made myself clear, because you speak as if everyone acted in sheer goodwill, and no one had any special interest at all.

Now explain again all that about the official reports.

reply to post by jrod

Can you kindly explain where that number of how many lives 'saved' from nuclear energy comes from?

Coal mining deaths vs Uranium mining deaths per Kilowatt hour produced.

Obviously.

Thetruthseeker: If this energy goes out somewhere in world, be it a prosper or poor country, it will spread worldwide anyway because of the press. This, this is what they high corporates and lobbyists do not want

Great! But let’s consider free energy a realistic alternative when at least one of the 196 countries in this world, deploys it. Before that time it far more with day dreaming, than policy debating.

Well, this is realistic, on what basis is this not realistic ? If we are to free the world of it's corporate enslavement, free energy actually looks like a great starting point. Once this comes out and it will, the beginning of freedom will start to spread at 300 000 km/sec, that is approximately the speed of light.

Great future and potential there is on this planet I do consider.



Thruthseek3r

Rofl

Giant Fukushima Mutant Turtle Finally Captured By Japanese Military

Noto, Japan – Japan had to call on US naval seal teams to help reel the the iron-shelled beast in. Weighing in at over 7 tons, the locals had taken to calling the newest Fukushima mutant クッパ大魔王, quite literally translating to The Great Demon King Koopa (Bowser) of modern lore. Some residents claimed at night its eyes would glow red as it emerged from the waters, usually hungry for small children or cattle, but its appetite knowing no true limit. Other residents say the great demon turtle could be heard wailing in the distance, bellowing out toward the heavens and speaking ancient Japanese, the words they say were a call toward the dark gods of ancient.

Truly, this may have been a beast of the apocalypse, as far as locals in the decimated town of Noto, Japan, are concerned.

When US special forces were finally called in, one soldier recalled, “We watched the target gallop down a highway, running head first toward a brave semitruck driver determined to be heroic and knock the damned monster out with kamikaze tactics. Japanese officials frantically called him on his CB radio, telling him to turn around. I would say the turtle was running a good 20 miles per hour, it was insane! It was crazy.”

Source (Joke)