The nuke (power) hoax costs you directly

Be the 1st to vote.

This is why every Ontarian should care about the nuke hoax. As usual, even the increase is encoded with their occult numerology.

Nuclear weapons are not real.
Nuclear power is not real.
Nuclear science is fiction.

Of course all this money will go into the giant slush fund that is paid directly to the private swindlers who pose as nuclear contractors. A portion also goes to the failed green corpse that operates the massively inefficient green solar and wind power.

Ontario Power Generation has applied for a whopping 69 per cent increase in the amount it is paid for nuclear power over the next five years.

OPG says it needs the increase to help pay for the $12.8-billion refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear station, which the government announced in January to extend the life of the reactors by another 30 years.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance says OPG’s application shows it wants nine cents a kilowatt hour for the power produced from Darlington…

No tags for this post.

27 thoughts on “The nuke (power) hoax costs you directly

  1. xileffilex

    This is a wonderful story – Reds under the bed as well as environmental concerns around in the noo, noocleer power station [actually a replacement]…

    “When the old power station was operating, if you went paddling the water was sometimes warm, and you’d see lots of jellyfish.


    the ‘decommissioning’ process has started (this appears to be one guy with a JCB),

    [of the old plant]

    which used to produce about 242 MW.


    some good photos there


    Bradwell is close to the Essex coastline. Electricity generation started in 1962 and ceased in 2002. During its lifetime the site generated nearly 60 TWh of electricity

    allegedly [Terrawatt hours, = billion kilowatt hours]

    source –

  2. Blue Moon

    This is all speculation but what the hell: The staging of the Yom Kipper War in ’73 was to give the London/Wall Street concoction known as OPEC an opportunity to boldly stage an oil embargo which jacked up the price of crude to four times the cost of a barrel- Job done- More $$ for the Oilagarchs- Inconvenienced Americans, tired of gas rationing and long lines at the pump, demanded a new look at alternative energy sources, most importantly nuclear power, long advertised as the cheap and clean future of energy- Along comes The China Syndrome starring intel-op Hanoi Jane Fonda, followed 12 days later by the Three Mile Island hoax- End of discussion regarding nuclear power-
    Nuclear annihilation is too abstract a concept to burden the collective imagination, so a practical use of this mythical power was proposed to give fission a ground level “reality”, and in the process, enhance and protect the Armageddon myth- Thus: Nuclear Energy- Clean and cheap and good for your babies- Woe betide the maniac who uses this cheap and clean miracle to viciously annihilate humanity- Bottom line: You want cheap and clean energy from a source that can also destroy the planet Earth? What kind of cheap bastards are you voracious consumers? You pay more for oil to keep babies safe, you miserable Ghouls!
    IMO, those phony nuke plants are there to give oil price rigging some wiggle room- If you want to stage a phony oil shortage without causing brown outs or riots, you need some kind of alternative to keep the prole’s television sets on- Whatever is in those plant dumps, they may be used selectively to cover for missing oil based energy while the Oilagarchs stage skirmishes to sell the need for raising prices at the pump and on your monthly bill- (Tho’ at this late date, CGI wars are enough to sell the price increases without having to worry about steam driven turbines and the like)

  3. xileffilex

    It’s worth looking at France compared with GB/D/CDN [the last three all being in the same ball park] Yes, we have to rely on Wiki but…………
    country – reactors – capacity – net generated – pc generated nuclear
    France 58 63130 416800.00 76.34%
    U. K. 15 8918 63894.54 18.87%
    Canada 19 13524 98374.97 16.60%
    Germ 8 10799 86810.32 14.09%

    [not sure how Northern Ireland fits in with this]
    This needs to be matched with consumption…
    country – consumption [year] population
    Germany 582,500,000 2012 80,716,000
    France 451,100,000 2012 65,864,000
    Canada 524,800,000 2012 35,344,962
    United King 323,300,000 2013 63,705,000
    Italy 307,200,000 2012 60,021,955

    These comparisons in Europe are meaningless because..

    From being a net electricity importer through most of the 1970s, France has become the world’s largest net electricity exporter, with electricity being the fourth largest export. (Next door is Italy, without any operating nuclear power plants. It is Europe’s largest importer of electricity, most coming ultimately from France.) The UK has also become a major customer for French electricity.France’s nuclear reactors comprise 90% of EdF’s capacity and hence are used in load-following mode (see section below) and are even sometimes closed over weekends, so their capacity factor is low by world standards, at 77.3%. However, availability is almost 84% and increasing.…

    So, what’s going on in France? Perhaps a lot of people pedalling very hard on bicycles with dynamos?

    1. ab Post author

      Germany is busy burning coal from what I recall, with more on the way. Maybe France is just passing on German power, or its numbers are totally bogus.

      1. xileffilex

        Are Canadians/Canadian industries really consuming roughly 30 per cent more electricity for 40 per cent fewer inhabitants compared with the UK?
        There’s something wrong there, surely.

  4. Barbara Müller

    well, I’m not sure if there is no nuclear power. Reactors are working not only in plants but also in many universities. My own alma mater had one small reactor producing heat within a controlled environment allowing precise measurements for students purposes. I have an engineering degree myself, not in physics though and I have visited that place many times. It really produces heat using uranium and heavy water. There are so many of this plants worldwide, I don’t think they needed to create so many fake power plants to keep the lie alive. It’s just that there is not more danger in a nuclear power plant than in any other big factory. It also matches what Galen Winsor told us about. As for introducing myself, I prefer anonymity for I have a family to protect (four children actually) and all I’m willing to share here is that I have some scientific knowledge from my university time and some financial knowledge fro my job in banking business. I hope, dear AB, you won’t ban me for it but that’s all I can give away.

    1. ab Post author

      There is nothing in your comment to convince me that you are grasping the concepts espoused by this site. Just because you worked in the very system to promote the lie doesn’t mean the core science is real. Of course they have to build large edifices to extort the money. They may even serve another purpose (dump loads). Either way BM I don’t think you are here to help but more to disrupt.

      1. Barbara Müller

        maybe I missed something but all I could read here was some assumptions not better than my assumptions. I at least saw directly that nuclear materials can easily produce a lot of heat. Coal-fired power stations work the same way nuclear plants are supposed to work. It’s perfectly ok IMH to consider nukes as fakes for there is strong evidence for it. E.g. all evidence for their existence is laughable and fake. But what evidence do we have that plants are fakes also? The official evidence for their existence are the plants itself which supposedly produce all the electrical power we are using. They may be using conventional fuel for heating water instead of nuclear energy but it is an empty assumption. Other types of power plants require a regular delivery of coal or oil, they have storage facilities, etc. Nuclear power plants have nothing like that. Physics students study this stuff and make experiments in labs, they have to make measurements, write protocols, draw conclusions, calculate designs, etc. It’s not comparable to nukes, where there is nothing like that. No university has nuke laboratories where students practice with nukes, etc. That is a completely different thing. I see many similarities to the space hoax here. Manned space stations are a hoax but not necessarily the satellites, as nukes are hoax but not necessarily nuclear power plants. I’m simply not assuming that everything is a fake until proven otherwise because that is an impossibility in itself. I to this day have seen no clear evidence, that nuclear power plants are something else. Don’t assume for this makes an ass of you and me. Show me a prove. A real one.

        1. ab Post author

          I can’t prove it, just as they can’t prove that there is a magical faggot of fuel in a pool. I don’t assume everything is fake, so I wish you’d stop chanting that mantra that was given to you by critics of fakeology. I am taking 9/11>nukes>nuclear power as a logical pathway of deductions, and have over the years shown the foolishness and fakery surrounding EVERY nuclear power story in the past few years. If it’s real, then THEY have to prove it. If the science is real, then THEY have to prove it – to each and every level of intelligence out there since WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR IT THROUGH OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES.

      2. Tom Dalpra

        Is nuclear power definitely fake ? I certainly wouldn’t know.
        I’m comfortable with nuclear bombs being a con, but I never got as far as deciding nuclear power was definitely a con too!

        It’s s a fair question, but for me, Barbara’s comment is fair enough. She merely says that she’s ‘not sure’ nuclear power is fake.
        If she’s really spent time in a lab with a mini nuclear reactor producing heat, then that seems relevant. What is happening in these mini reactors in university laboratories if they produce heat if it isn’t from the mini reactor ? If they exist then they may be something accessible to investigate.

        Could nuclear power not be a genuine thing ab, and could it be that it’s just nowhere near as dangerous as we’re told, as Barbara Muller suggests ?

        I remember you banning Clueseau a few months back just when I was starting to have an intelligent conversation about ‘ earth physics’ . I’m concerned you may needlessly be pushing Barbara Muller away at this point. It seemed like a reasonable post to me.

        I haven’t ever really looked at nuclear power. Do you have any link to any research on the topic ab ? Did I miss something?

        1. ab Post author

          Clueseau was banned because she was clearly a sock puppet of another user arguing with herself. I agree let’s hear more about BM’s work in a mini nuke lab and see what that proves or doesn’t prove.

          1. Barbara Müller

            dear AB, if nuclear power plants are what they are told to be, then they are big facilities containing a lot of expensive technology which has to be managed. So the manager in charge has a lot of responsibility and six figures salaries (in your lists mostly 120-160k) are more than adequate. It may look a lot to somebody who never made it to any responsible position in a big company but nowadays that is the range people with required skills and experience are being paid. I’m not saying that this people work so hard or are so talented or that it is fair to pay them so much. It’s what big companies today pay to managers or top engineers. If you want a piece of it you need a good master degree and to start early working on your career in that area. 20 years back it was only the half of it. Your lists would then contain salaries far below the 100k range. That’s a measure how the inflation is eating the value of currencies. In Europe they changed local currencies in many countries into EUR in 2001, which in EVERY involved country made the salaries of working people worth only half the previous value. In Germany most of goods reached the same numeric prices expressed in EUR within a couple of months. 1 EUR = 1.95583 DM. On the other hand a banker who earns say half a million per annum hast to give up the half of it as taxes and has to buy expensive suits, pay private healthcare, pay a lot of service people, etc. He still has a lot of money compared to a worker and a nice live style but his money gets eaten faster than it is growing. And forget the fantasy numbers where they tell us those people are being paid in hundreds of millions. All the billionaires we know by name from the mainstream media are just actors, including Trump, Gates, Murdoch, etc. Their task is to make us jealous and eager and greedy. Same applies to famous actors. Why do you think those people has to work late in live? Because they enjoy the work? Or because they still need money?

            1. xileffilex

              Let’s call out a few nuclear managers….
              previous employer – Transport for London! Oh well….

              Cambridge University

              Sizewell director

              Noooclear engineer since 1981…now into contruction [of nooclear power stations] ConstructEnergy is a joint venture between Costain, Sir Robert McApline, Hochtief and Heitkamp focused on UK nuclear power plant construction.

              self-proclaimed nooclear finance expert

              ex-Navy, ex- military

              director, nuclear ops EDF in UK
              [sounds a little hoaxy- “cracks” found at Hunterston in Scotland]

              self-proclaimed “nuclear professional” , former”reactor engineer” in Scotland

              And this story sounds VERY hoaxy – the contained leak….from 2009

              The Environment Agency said it was pleased with the [£100,000] penalties imposed by the judge, who also instructed the firm to pay £150,000 legal costs.

              A real money-go-roound, good news for m’learned friends who will be rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of the next “leak” – and nobody noticed for 14 years. Quite, quite unbelieveable.

              Martyn Bowyer, for Magnox, told the court: “The contamination has effectively remained within the footprint of the building. There is no significant risk either to workers on the site or, more importantly, to the general public.”

              Mr Bowyer is a barrister, by the way.

              1. Barbara Müller

                @xileffilex: they use power plants for hoaxes as they use airport terminals for hoaxes and as they use other real objects for hoaxes. They also use many people with faked background for their made up stories. So what? That does not proof nuclear power plants are fakes in general. There are 438 such factories world wide actually. Everyone requires about 1000 workers for maintenance. They may build empty skyscrapers but that also does not mean, all skyscrapers are empty. I work in one i.e. on the 51-th floor and I see many others from my window, which definitely are not empty.
                My current floor was finished two years ago by the way. I work in that building for 15 years now. The upper floors were finished just recently after the bank expanded and needed more office space. Again, it’s not comparable to nukes, where the only proof of their existence are some funny cartoons. and where no real people ever get in contact with. Physics students make measurements and experiments on real reactors, no student or other real person will ever see any nuke.

                1. ab Post author

                  @xile is showing good information how the nuke hoax is being perpetrated. What are you doing Barb? We’re looking for clues to find fakery, based on our premise that unclear energy is a hoax. If you want to discuss how it’s real, I suggest you go find another blog. I don’t mind a bit of devil’s advocacy, but you’re just running interference. It’s time for a litmus test for BM: what’s your take on 9/11? Do you agree at all with this blog’s thesis?

                  1. Tom Dalpra

                    ab said – ”xile is showing good information how the nuke hoax is being perpetrated. What are you doing Barb? ”

                    ”Barb” haha. Literally a barbed comment.
                    ”Barb” still seems to be making fair enough points to me. xileffilex’s post is interesting but I see nothing there to answer the question ‘is nuclear power real ?”

                    I really haven’t looked at any research questioning the veracity of nuclear power.
                    Where is the evidence that ”Nuclear Power is not real ” ? That’s a big claim.

                    Satellites are a different thing. I certainly don’t believe satellites are as we’re told they are (…. ) as Barbara suggests she does , but on nuclear power, it might well be fake with what we already know, but where’s the research ?

                    We can talk about this on audiochat.

                  2. Barbara Müller

                    If you want to suggest nuclear power plants are fakes then you have to find a convincing fact stating this theory. You didn’t so far. That’s all I’m saying. I by the way completely agree to most of your findings. I’m sure, all video and photo-materials from 911 was faked, the buildings were probably mostly empty already, the last tenants has been spooked away after 1993’s staged basement explosion. The entire hoax was simply an insurance fraud. The latest Brussels airport explosion was also an insurance fraud. There are people in charge who are very creative inventing new methods how to laundry taxpayers money into their own pockets. NASA does it, the university based mainstream science does it, medical industry does it. Everybody with some power wants a chunk of all the billions the regular people are paying as taxes. We are being screwed big time here and this goes back to the after war times. I don’t believe in contagion or viruses. I consider western doctors as crooks. The entire medicare system only wants to keep as sick as long as possible to maximize their profits. My advice always would be not to take any chemical substances being sold as medicine including all drugs. If it has to be extracted via chemical methods, then it only can do harm. The idea of injecting any substances into human bodies to heal them is ridiculous to say the least. It’s all the chemical medicine which makes us sick. All those sick, fat, hardly able to move people out there are victims of heavy medication. And they are still taking other medication until they land in hospitals and not even then they will let them day but will keep them alive and write bills as long as possible. I also follow the Clues Forum and read Miles Mathis papers regularly with great interest, don’t like most of his scientific papers though for I don’t believe in relativity theory or anything the theoretical physics ever invented. I don’t believe in light speed, in time bending, in Higgs particles, etc. I think we are being misled there on purpose. and it started about 1900, where people like Einstein entered the stage. My list is long and I’ll stop here. Regards. B.M.

                    1. smj

                      the psience hustle goes back further than 1900 and albert’s warped space-time yarn. carl sagan told us that kepler was the first psience fiction writer. he wrote about spaceships going to mars and his mother talking to demons and whatnot…


                      …johannes was married to a twice-widowed twenty-three year old doll named barbara müller of course.

                      anyway, the same hustler gave us the cyclotron, linear accelerator, electron microscope, nuclear chain reaction, and nuclear reactor…


                      …leo had read world set free of course; but the story goes he was inspired by chadwick’s neutrons. do any of the clever kids at university ever see a neutron?

                    2. ab Post author

                      So Barb is she your pseudonamesake? If so, what are we to take from your self naming?

                    3. ab Post author

                      No Barb, those that control the nuke psyience have to prove to me that their stories are true. After all, as a deeply entrenched slave, I am paying for them.

    2. Hoi Polloi

      Barbara, I am willing to consider what you say as a possibility, since it’s the most I’ve heard about nuclear power since I’ve heard it was even a thing. 😀

      My own alma mater had one small reactor producing heat within a controlled environment allowing precise measurements for students purposes. I have an engineering degree myself, not in physics though and I have visited that place many times. It really produces heat using uranium and heavy water.

      I hope you don’t mind, I want to challenge all of us to examine these things and consider that Barbara is correct. The best way to find out would be to get close to someone with a device and verify it for ourselves.

      To that end, Barbara, were you able to examine and test closely the uranium, and the water and understand what each was, chemically and verify it personally? Was it so simple that you could see there was no mechanism for exploiting the visual appearance of the device and hide a battery or alternative power source?

      I understand that the Masons and head magicians giving us “shuttle programs” and “9/11 witnesses” and so forth need successors, hence initiations and pacts. And the first test of an intern would be to best the intelligence of respected professors and opinion leaders so that they would do the work of telling everyone that believes them. Is your alma mater in any sort of club, engineering society, sorority or fraternity? Any connection to such, or to a military, that you know of? (Not that an answer in the affirmative or negative would somehow escape the problem of needing to verify the science for ourselves.)

      Next time you get a chance, perhaps you can ask to examine it disassembled in some way, and not just a drawing but the actual components and whatnot.

      1. Barbara Müller

        dear Hoi (wow the famous Hoi Polloi from the Clues forum itself, what an honor) ,
        I wasn’t going online for a couple of days for I have a real life which does not require any computer. So I’m answering now. Maybe you’ll still happen to read this.
        All I saw and ever had contact with was an 80’s style control set, showing temperature or pressure controls I also saw the cooling pool with that blue lighting water once. My understanding is, they put used materials which are not efficient enough for the steam machines there to cool of. I think the physics students actually also only use this control set and don’t go in contact with the nuclear material itself. The most of them at least. So yes, there is a possibility, that all is just a fake installation. But it stays an empty assumption. I also never used an electronic microscope myself but I don’t assume it’s a hoax just because I never had any contact with it. I never heard of any convincing fact proving that rectified uranium cannot effectively produce any significant heat which can be used for steam engines. Did you? I’m in banking business now and will never get any closer to a nuclear reactor anymore. Some of my kids maybe but I doubt it regarding their interests. It was over 20 years ago and I wasn’t by far as critical back then as I am now. So again. It maybe (or have been) a fake but I need something more than an assumption. It’s not like we humans are not capable of making really extraordinary technology. We got a new UHD-tv set lately and there wasn’t any bad pixel in it and it wasn’t even very expensive, or take tera-byte hard discs. It’s such a fantastic technology. Maybe somebody with more time than I have could reread old documents describing the first experiments with nuclear energy for flaws. My primary interests are in (western) medicine which I consider to be completely fake and contra productive on purpose. Financial and banking issues go second. and that eats almost all of my spare time. But I’m looking forward to any research in the nuclear area that will demonstrate that it all is completely faked and not for real.

        Kind regards.

    3. xilefflex

      Would that be QMC London by any chance, Barbara?
      The redactions in these “secret” documents are really quite laughable.…
      perhaps this “model” noo clear reactor was part of the hoax. I suspect these unredacted names, DC Leslie and PR Smith had a hand in that pile down Marshgate Lane which got buried under the olympic games.…
      No cause for alarm. Of course not.…

      1. Tom Dalpra

        There’s no doubt in my mind that NOOKULA anything is questionable and that the whole game is a con within the bigged rigged game, anyway. It’s just the true nature of this con that interests me.

        Where does the con begin ?

        And what exactly were those Calutron Girls doing ?…
        Could they have been producing anything ? Clearly I don’t think they were making the bomb, but does perhaps this particle acceleration process bit work in producing something ?

        Don’t get me wrong, I look back at 1944 Nobel Prize winner Fermi and the pantomime of his seemingly absurd pile and think – ”If that’s the first nuclear reactor, then all this nuclear stuff looks a bit dodgy.”

        Emerging to the forefront during the War ( like rocket technology) there was obviously a conscious effort to bring in this new ‘Nookla’ stuff for the post war age. We see a ‘Jewish’ alignment with this emergent technology tied in with the whole presented world view going forward.

        Where does the bullshit about nuclear begin and end ?

        1. xilefflex

          Well, Tom,the BS certainly passes through many parts of Ing-er-land and Scotland between Coulport and Aldermaston in this noo clear warhead transportation charade.

          Stands out a mile, doesn’t it, using these sinister MoD trucks rather than an anonymous Eddie Stobart tractor and trailer which nobody would look at twice.

          Natuarlly, this gives rise to DISASTER SCENARIOS
          Exercise Senator 2011…

          The lorry crashes through the central reservation and into one of three nuclear weapons carriers heading south. The weapons carrier swerves and topples over, fuel bursts into flames and plutonium and uranium leak from damaged warheads. A second weapons carrier has to take evasive action and is involved in a collision with a lorry. Up to 100 people are contaminated with radioactivity from the simulated accident, seven suffer serious injuries and two are killed. The exercise was carried out in a field near HMS Gannet, a Royal Navy search and rescue base at Glasgow Prestwick airport, with co-ordination centres in East Kilbride, Glasgow, London, Bristol and Aldermaston.




          Be very very scared. Another job creation exerise.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.