Truth will out: nuclear science is a hoax

likes this

Nuclear power, nuclear bombs, nuclear medicine are all based on a phony science developed by psychological war scientists.

 

 

The scientist, Marvin Minsky (1927-2016) was one of the pioneers of the field of Artificial Intelligence, having founded the MIT AI Lab in 1970. Since the 1950s, his work involved trying to uncover human thinking processes and replicate them in machines. [Listener: Christopher Sykes]TRANSCRIPT: I don’t think it was an important part then, except that since people were going to and getting killed in this period it was a great relief. And for several days after the news came out I was convinced that this was actually a… a hoax, because was a port city, and so I assumed that in fact somebody had equipped a barge with a few thousand tons of TNT, just as the cliché went, and they’d slipped this barge into the harbor, and then they flew a little airplane over and dropped something and set off this bomb. And so I assumed this was a great for fooling the Japanese into thinking we had an atomic bomb.But Nagasaki wasn’t so accessible, so… I think many people must have wondered, why… why did we drop two bombs? Why wasn’t one enough? My first thought was that it was to convince them that it wasn’t a hoax. A few years later then, I met Oppenheimer for the first time when I was in graduate school at Princeton, and he was very hospitable… and tragic.

Source: HOAX BUSTERS CALL

No tags for this post.

22 thoughts on “Truth will out: nuclear science is a hoax

  1. gaia

    “erfecksake the hustler that discovered the neutron was one of the biggest of the bigwigs on the manhattan project…”

    And that is indeed the fallacy.

    The atomic model is a model. We cannot directly observe atoms, let alone subatomic particles. But we can use this model to explain radioactivity. Radioactivity is not invented by the Curies, it is a natural phenomenon where unstable isotopes release radiation.

    That is in several places in the world to be observed.

    I have never believed in nuclear bombs since reading about it on Cluesforum, years before coming here. So no change there. The power I am in doubt, it is too big to magically cover with something else.

    And by “free market” I meant the companies (indeed there is little free market; let’s expand that with agorism). Not the academic or other government organizations but commercial companies, not corporations who use nuclear technology for engineering.

    Other uses from the horses mouth, I of course cannot say if these cases really use derivatives of nuclear science and technology, but if not, these are exactly the ones to explain then alternatively:

    Fertilizers

    Fertilisers are expensive and if not properly used can damage the environment. It is important that as much used fertilizer as possible is “fixed” in the plant matter and that a minimum is lost to the environment. ‘Labelling’ fertilizers with a particular isotope (e.g. nitrogen-15) provides a means of ascertaining how much has been taken up by the plants, allowing for better management of fertilizer use.

    Smoke detectors

    The common type of household smoke detector contains a small amount of Am-241, which is a decay product of plutonium-241 originating in nuclear reactors. The Am-241 emits alpha particles which ionise the air and allow a current between two electrodes. If smoke enters the detector it absorbs the alpha particles and interrupts the current, setting off the alarm.

    Industrial tracers

    Radioisotopes are used by manufacturers as tracers to monitor fluid flow and filtration, detect leaks, and gauge engine wear and corrosion of process equipment. Small concentrations of short-lived isotopes can be detected whilst no residues remain in the environment. By adding small amounts of radioactive substances to materials used in various processes it is possible to study the mixing and flow rates of a wide range of materials, including liquids, powders and gases, and to locate leaks.

    GMOs

    The Plant Breeding and Genetics Section assists FAO and IAEA Member States in the implementation of innovative and effective plant breeding programmes using radiation induced mutation, mutation detection and pre-breeding technologies.

    These kinds of examples I am looking for:

    The BN-350 fast reactor at Aktau, in Kazakhstan, successfully supplied up to 135 MWe of electric power while producing 80,000 m3/d of potable water over some 27 years to 1999, about 60% of its power being used for heat and desalination. The plant was designed as 1000 MWt but never operated at more than 750 MWt, but it established the feasibility and reliability of such cogeneration plants. (In fact, oil/gas boilers were used in conjunction with it, and total desalination capacity through ten MED units was 120,000 m3/d.)

    So here it could be explained by a conventional (fossil fuel-powered) desalination plant. But is that true in all cases? Based on 1 possible example that seems a stretch.

    1. smj

      Thanks for the response. Would you care to enlighten me as to how pointing out that the discoverer of the neutron was also the head the British mission to the manhattan project is a logical fallacy? The manhattan project is ground zero for all this shite. Have you even heard of alfred neir?

      Then maybe we can type at each other about americium and mass spectrometry.

      Ohanbytheway, we aren’t typing about radioactivity. We are typing about ionizing radioactivity. Keep that in mind for later, little buddy.

  2. gaia

    A Great New Year All!

    Good to see insiders speaking out and good people sharing it.

    But the leap from fake Hollywood bomb tests to “phony science” (what does that mean exactly?) and no nuclear applications whatsoever I wouldn’t make.

    The Nuclear engineering Wikipedia page does not list a huge set of areas, but these ionizing beams, particle accelerators and especially the application in “health care” (quite the opposite) and technology we use daily must either be real or completely covered by an alternative unknown science then, like “satellites”.

    Which analysis of that application area; the engineering of nuclear science, so the real life applications, not the behind-closed-door-things as nuclear power stations (I am still on the fence with that one) but accessible academic research institutes and engineering companies, convinced you that the science is wrong/”phony”?

    The free market does not spend a million on an ionizing machine that is a hoax.

    1. smj

      Little buddy, I’m not sure what you mean by an ionizing machine. Ionization has to do with charge and nobody is denying the existence of cathodes and anodes or that a potential difference can be produced.

      Butwhatever, you can believe in nukes if you want to. At least you don’t believe in the bombs anymore that’s a start. The thing is I can’t understand how you can reconcile the obvious fact that nuclear weapons are a hoax with the rest of nuclear psience narrrative and still come out believe in something as psilly as let’s say radioisotopes. Ferfecksake the hustler that discovered the neutron was one of the biggest of the bigwigs on the manhattan project…

      “Chadwick was a member of the British MAUD Committee, which concluded that the creation of nuclear weapons was possible and even inevitable. This supposition contributed towards President Roosevelt’s decision to build the atomic bomb. Additionally, Chadwick was an integral figure in the Tube Alloy Project—the codename for the British program to devise and develop nuclear weapons. His overtures to government officials in the UK and US were central to UK-US cooperation.
      From 1943 to 1946, Chadwick headed the British Mission to the Manhattan Project. He also served as the technical advisor to the US-Canadian-UK Combined Policy Committee, which coordinated control of the project between the three nations involved. In 1944, Chadwick moved his family to the Project’s main research facility in Los Alamos. Finding the housing conditions distasteful, his twin daughters objected to the move, and so the family relocated to Washington D.C. where he continued to contribute to the Project’s efforts.
      Chadwick formed a particularly congenial relationship with General Leslie Groves during the war. The two’s friendship aided British efforts to maintain strong support with the United States throughout the Manhattan Project. Chadwick was the only civilian—and non-American—allowed to access the entirety of the Manhattan Project’s research, data, and production plants.
      Throughout the war, Chadwick drafted agreements to supply uranium for the Manhattan Project. Additionally, he observed the first atomic explosion, known as the Trinity test. Because of Chadwick’s insistence, British observers were allowed to be present at the bombing of Nagasaki.”

      www.atomicheritage.org/profile…

      1. barbm124

        HNY everybody, I used to think the nukes are fake but the plants are real. I’ve seen a reactor during my university time many times but it wasn’t producing electricity, just lot’s of heat for physics students to do their experiments. Since the plants look the same like any other steam based power plants I’m having my doubts about the reality of nuclear plants. Now they tend to switch many of them off here (Germany) without any impact on electricity supply I’m wondering where this new electricity comes from. There obviously is no shortage of electricity. They even force all the electric cars, bikes, rollers and such upon us even though they can never pay off their costs. I consider this to be a long time project with a different goal than it looks like now. Maybe to condition us to replace our own cars with some kind of enhanced Uber system where everybody just rents a vehicle when needed without ever owning one. Uber being a part of this long term project. The time of a free market is also gone since the globalization took over. The price no longer mirrors the supply and demand relations since we have overproduction on anything. We could supply everybody with a couple of cars already but such thing makes no sense of course. So why not go farther and instead of keeping an own car in the garage for the most of the time and having cars being driven by single persons for the most of the time, we all could use suitable vehicles like we use the E-rollers now by just taking one when and where necessary? Why cooking food at home (and keeping an equipped kitchen there) when fast food (or mass cooking in general) is so much more rational? Why going out for shopping (and keeping shops and malls) when ordering by amazon is so much easier? And since prices are fake, why bother about income at all. Just make everybody do his part for the community and supply him with necessities. It’s not that easy of course. But it seems to be the plan for our future. The old communists dream will become reality. Greeting comrades. lol.

        1. ab Post author

          Technology is enabling the sharing revolution. I’m also glad to see you’ve come around on nuke plants. Now drop your satellite fantasy and you’ll be all set.

          1. barbm124

            I didn’t say, I believe that nuclear power plants are fake now. I’m still looking for one convincing argument. The physics behind it is not fake. I’ve seen that myself and thousands of students on my Alma Mater practiced for their exams on a small nuclear reactor. Power plants produce electricity we all use every day. So supposedly do nuclear power plants. There still are so many of this plants working everywhere. You can’t fool all the people working there. This are local people. Not some hired actors or insiders. Nukes are a totally different matter. Normal people will never be allowed to work on nuke projects. not to mention the absurdity of all the explosion videos. We have many insiders giving us hints, that nukes are not real. I have never heard of any nuclear power plant worker claiming his plant was fake. I know, when people are getting payed, they tend not to question their work but it is not applicable here. Satellites are definitely real and you can prove that yourself and I told you many times how. Satellitedishes are not that expensive and it is fun to watch foreign tv programs for a change.

            1. ab Post author

              I can’t spend one more second arguing with you Barb. I think the users here have done a great job showing how wrong you are and I’ll just leave you alone now.

            2. gaia

              I didn’t say, I believe that nuclear power plants are fake now. I’m still looking for one convincing argument. The physics behind it is not fake. I’ve seen that myself and thousands of students on my Alma Mater practiced for their exams on a small nuclear reactor. Power plants produce electricity we all use every day. So supposedly do nuclear power plants. There still are so many of this plants working everywhere. You can’t fool all the people working there. This are local people. Not some hired actors or insiders. Nukes are a totally different matter. Normal people will never be allowed to work on nuke projects. not to mention the absurdity of all the explosion videos. We have many insiders giving us hints, that nukes are not real. I have never heard of any nuclear power plant worker claiming his plant was fake.

              These kind of thoughts I have as well.

              The last part is the point, there IS evidence of that, Roger Desjardins, a Canadian engineer working at a nuclear power plant who thus got inside knowledge and he is the proponent of the “dump load” or “energy storage” capacity theory for “nuclear power”.

              I saw his posts first on a Russian forum in English which has been taken down unfortunately but I got to talk with him about the Nuke and Space Travel hoaxes at TruthZone.

              cdn.discordapp.com/attachments…Nuclear_Reactor_Hoax_1.jpg
              cdn.discordapp.com/attachments…
              -_Nuclear_Reactor_Hoax_2.jpg

              Still he doesn’t answer the questions about uranium mining. That is used for technology.

              The same problem persists for the Nuclear Reactor Hoax proponents, which I might be, I am still unsure about this part.

              If the “dump load” theory is correct, how can the world suddenly survive with those “dump loads” closing down en masse.

              This cheap handwaiving and autohoaxing is jeopardizing real truth seeking, the scientific method.

                1. gaia

                  Is this the scientific approach we get. Empty claims without any backup. That’s a promising trend for 2020!

                  Why not do the work first. At least Simon Shack did that.

                    1. smj

                      Who da feck even looks at the fakeopedia stuff anyway? Might as well delete the shite or give it to the bitch on her way out. I will always have a fond memory of Gaia’s hissy fit over that shite when the Greek lady messed with some of my little buddy’s posts though.

Leave a Reply

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