Some good news from Fukushima Daiichi

originally posted by: Pont52
a reply to: Psynic

Tesla invented similar things almost a century ago; so I am sure it's possible... but I've never heard of this Keshe guy.

The US military has had plans for these things in the past as well, so I wouldn't say it's too far-fetched...

LINK

If Tesla "invented" an anti-gravity machine, where is it?

And if the US military has "plans" for a free energy device, why are we burning fossil fuels?

If it doesn't actually work, it hasn't been "invented".

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Pont52
a reply to: Psynic

Tesla invented similar things almost a century ago; so I am sure it's possible... but I've never heard of this Keshe guy.

The US military has had plans for these things in the past as well, so I wouldn't say it's too far-fetched...

LINK

If Tesla "invented" an anti-gravity machine, where is it?

And if the US military has "plans" for a free energy device, why are we burning fossil fuels?

If it doesn't actually work, it hasn't been "invented"

There is a pervasive myth that 'we' (population) have the latest and greatest technology. There is anti-gravity, there is free energy but we won't see it - it is kept from us. The big question no one asks is "why" it is kept from us - why are they using nuclear power in the first place that they have no way of dealing with?

A simple pondering of what the military does with their trillion dollars in secret budgets has to assume they are doing advanced research in technology as well as weaponry. What we "see" is nothing compared to what they actually "have". There is a distinct division between the top of the pyramid and all the rest of us. Even the president's don't know what's going on, they're just talking puppet heads... even a cursory look at available information will affirm all this.

You have no clue what they've invented - or not - unless you have been through every nook and cranny of all top secret facilities and files.

.

a reply to: wishes

I have no response to the suggestion that unlimited free energy and anti-gravity exist and are being concealed from us instead of being used to solve the worlds problems.

Good luck with that.

Even if the worst had happened at Fukushima would the resulting radiation be killing 28,000 lost a year in just the UK primarily thanks to fossil fuel use?
www.bbc.co.uk...
The amount from fossil fuel use is at least 13,000
www.nhs.uk...

Even before the fuel rods where removed, people here were creating threads saying this was a “human extinction event”. And even that it was releasing 10 Hiroshima’s every hour…
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I pointed out the physical volume of totally pure uranium-plutonium required for this, made this claim non-sensible, but nevertheless (if you look at that thread’s comments) most people who replied bought it.

Thank goodness for ATS Pont52? Yes, but only if you realize there are big liars on both sides of the nuclear debate. From what I have seen the people who actually lie the most (to each other and so then others) are the anti-nuclear fanatics. Let's face it: They are employed by nobody, accountable to nobody, and yet have a strong religion (or “politics” depending on how you look at it!) to drive.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BGTM90

I ment we as in US companies not necessarily the american people. But you're post kind of shows what I think is wrong in our society. Its all about the blame game who's fault it is for the situation we are in instead of trying to figure out solutions to the problems we face.

First you stated you meant "we" as in american companies and then use "we" again as in the problems "we face". Wishes post was spot on, the problems associated with what to do with waste from even those reactors that work still has not been solved for decades.

Burying radioactive fuel rods for a hundred thousand years is not a solution. It is another super fund cleanup site passed on to future generations. There is no solution to even the problem of waste alone let alone what to do with all the escaped radioactive fission by products from plants in full meltdown.

But good, keep focusing on the "site" and not on the overall consequences of a dangerous industry.

Yes I sure did but those were two diffrent statements in two diffrent contexts. Also to the rest of your post I believe that we should close all the aging reactors that are in the US and around the world I have voiced my strong opinion on this many times on this site. And also stated in the OP that the US reactors have more fuel in the SFP than the reactors at Fukushima and that we need to address the issue. But as I also stated I'm a very science based person. I've never been intrested in politics or good with words those things to me always just seem to get us in worse situations so for me clean up and decommissioning plants is what I focus on. That's why I'm going to school to become a nuclear engineer that specializes in nuclear contamination. There have been recent papers showing that decay time can be effected and accelerated. Things can be done we just have to figure it out and the point of my post that you quoted is nothing is going to be figured out if we all just sit around blaming people.

a reply to: BGTM90

There have been recent papers showing that decay time can be effected and accelerated.

Okay, I understand you better.

Any links to those "recent papers" would be appreciated.

Best source for Fukushima News:

www.ENEnews.com


There's no such thing as "good news" when it comes to Fuku. There is no fixing it & there is no future.

a reply to: intrptr

www.wmsym.org...

And even if it turns out it is impossible to change decay rates there are other technologies that can be developed to remove them from the environment and we can find natural remedies (I'm not fond of the Pharma industry either). We just need to have the right people working on it. There is a plethora of things people thought were impossible or impractical only to be proven wrong time and time again.

The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it... Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.
- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839), French surgeon

There is a young madman proposing to light the streets of London—with what do you suppose—with smoke!
- Sir Walter Scott

People even thought Nuclear power was impossible

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
- Albert Einstein, 1932.

any one who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine...
- Ernest Rutherford

I don't know you guys might think I'm stupid or naive for being an optimist and wanting to help the situation we are in, but I'm still going to try and if I fail, Oh Well.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Best source for Fukushima News:

www.ENEnews.com


There's no such thing as "good news" when it comes to Fuku. There is no fixing it & there is no future.

I frequent ENENEWS, I respect your opinion that there is no fixing it and no future and you very well may be right, but we will never find out if we don't try to solve the situation.

a reply to: BGTM90

Thanks for the link. I read it. As the PDF wouldn't let me capture less than a full page I screen captured the "theory" proposed…



What s clear is that expensive machines will be built, tested and even under "optimum conditions" we are only talking about reducing the decay rate (in the case of one radioactive element) by approximately one half life. Thats fine but leaves out the problem of multiple half lives of an element and how to get all the spilled sr90 out of the environment let alone out of the cores and into the machine and what to do with it after that, letting alone all the other elements in and around the melted cores and spread far and wife in the environment already….
whew.

If you are a student of nuclear power engineering you will understand what all I just said and give me a link to another paper because this one is far fetched and only partially effective theoretics…

a reply to: intrptr

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
arxiv.org...

We find that the PTB measurements of the decay rate of 137Cs show no evidence of an annual oscillation, in agreement with the recent report by Bellotti et al. However, power spectrum analysis of PTB measurements of a 133Ba standard, measured in the same detector system, does show such evidence. This result is consistent with our finding that different nuclides have different sensitivities to whatever external influences are responsible for the observed periodic variations.

arxiv.org...

Those are just the abstracts but you can download the pdfs if you would like. Also there are more if would like to look through them.

Ok yes I should have said suggesting not showing(my mistake) but it is a start. With out these theories and experiments we have nothing. We need to start somewhere. And I am not an engineering student yet still in Gen Ed classes. Im working on my Associates of science right now and plan on getting a bachelors of engineering and a masters in nuclear eng. Still a long ways off but I'm determined.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BGTM90

we are only talking about reducing the decay rate (in the case of one radioactive element) by approximately one half life.

if the original half life is 28.6 years and your reducing the half life to 5-10 years and we use 10 half lives till Sr90 is not of concern. Then that is 286 years for Sr.90 and 50-100 years if this theory can be applied. Thats reducing the time Sr90 is a concern by 8.25 to 6.5 half lives, or 238 to 186 years your removing. Not saying it is completely solving the problem and it is just a theory, but that is a significant reduction.

a reply to: BGTM90

Not saying it is completely solving the problem and it is just a theory, but that is a significant reduction.

Well, yah… on paper. For one element. In a theoretical optimum performance machine, that doesn't even exist.

Thats cool. Thanks for working with me. I have every hope you will apply your knowledge to exposing the risks and coverups of the industry (both nuclear power and bombs), instead of becoming another representative for their mistakes and misinformation.

After all, a degree in "engineering" is a career with them, not opposed.

originally posted by: intrptr
Well, yah… on paper. For one element. In a theoretical optimum performance machine, that doesn't even exist.

I don't know why you keep saying one element. First I think the word you are looking for is isotope. Second Sr90 is being used as an example. This theory deals with any isotope that undergoes forbidden beta decay. Also E=MC^2 had to be written down on paper first before experiments could prove it was right. I keep saying that it is a theory and I have made it clear that I understand that, but for some reason you also like to keep pointing it out, maybe to try to detract from its legitimacy or importance? I don't know.

After all, a degree in "engineering" is a career with them, not opposed.

Not if by the time you get that degree you have amassed enough resources to do your own thing. You keep doubting and Ill keep trying.

a reply to: BGTM90

Just out of curiosity, a sidenote;

Why does everyone keep saying "Daiichi"? Don't they realize that just means "Number one"? If you are talking in english, why not just say "Fukushima number one reactor"? Why say "Daiichi"?

(Dai = number, ichi = one)

originally posted by: Shoujikina
a reply to: BGTM90

Just out of curiosity, a sidenote;

Why does everyone keep saying "Daiichi"? Don't they realize that just means "Number one"? If you are talking in english, why not just say "Fukushima number one reactor"? Why say "Daiichi"?

(Dai = number, ichi = one)

If you live in Oklahoma, why call yourself Shoujikina?